[wbartley]

Just play bridge robot.

I would be curious to see how the advanced robot bids in this situation.

As North GIB holds:

T9754
T2
AT762
K

East deals and the bidding goes:

2♥-2♠-4♥-Pass!!!!!

Not surprisingly, the hand is cold for 6♠

[steve2005]

I'd be interested in seeing South's hand!
North has a bunch of junk! 8 losers. A♦ 5 trump is nice. K♣ might just as well be a small singleton.
South when bidding over a preempt is allowed to assume North has some cards and some spades so south shouldn't have a really great hand and could easily have 1 or 2 small ♥.
I probably would bid 4♠ with this junk depending on Vulnerability and imps/mp which you should state.
I would not be surprised if 4♠ went down and would be surprised you make 6 but this happens.

[pigpenz]

GIB is pretty good at bidding the law of total tricks so I would
expect partner to have at most 1♥. to me this almost analagous
to the 4♥ pre empt transfer to 4♠ that you see alot of
in vugraphs. I think it is risk vs gain on this one.

[wbartley]

You can't be serious. You would "probably" bid 4♠ with this hand? How can it be right to defend with 5-5 in the pointy suits when your partner made a direct 2♠ overcall?

By the way, the hand makes six if the K of clubs is a small singleton.

South's hand was AKxxxx A Kx xxxx. But it makes four on just about any lie of the cards if South's hand is AKxxxx x xx xxxx

[wank]

steve2005, on 2017-August-31, 09:54, said:

I'd be interested in seeing South's hand!
North has a bunch of junk! 8 losers. A♦ 5 trump is nice. K♣ might just as well be a small singleton.
South when bidding over a preempt is allowed to assume North has some cards and some spades so south shouldn't have a really great hand and could easily have 1 or 2 small ♥.
I probably would bid 4♠ with this junk depending on Vulnerability and imps/mp which you should state.
I would not be surprised if 4♠ went down and would be surprised you make 6 but this happens.

how about akxxx x kqx axxx? or akxxx x kx axxxx or pretty much anything with a heart void or just because you hate the stiff king so much, akxxx x xx aqjxx.

losing trick count really is pretty useless.

[The_Badger]

wank, on 2017-August-31, 12:03, said:

losing trick count really is pretty useless.

Yes, I agree. LTC is so yesterday. Works some of the time but too many hands where you count yourself out of a game contract, in my opinion.

[mike777]

Losing Trick count is not equal to counting "losers" just to be clear.
There are fair criticisms of LTC but at the very least apply the theory in full and correctly


Many of the so called problems with LTC are solved if you simply do not invest LTC with superpowers.

The example hand has an LTC count of 7 at worst, which means under LTC 4s is clear cut.

PARTNER now can reevaluate his hand which now has an LTC count of 5 at worst...that means slam is clearly in the picture and they should move over 4s.

to repeat LTC has it limitations and fair criticisms but at the very least use it properly and fully

[ahydra]

steve2005, on 2017-August-31, 09:54, said:

K♣ might just as well be a small singleton.

Not in the situation where partner has advertised a good hand. Partner's very likely to hold the club A or Q - or even J10x! - and the K now pulls its full weight. (OK, this time he didn't.)

ahydra

[jdonn]

It's known that GIB needs a lot of work responding to overcalls. That is high on the list.