[paulsim]

Hi all,

When partner opens 1-Major and we do have a fit to raise:

Do we need a minimun HCP for a 3 card limit raise or just work with dummy points all the way?

1♥.........?

a.- ♠8        ♥987    ♦A732      ♣K9762:    2♥ is right?
b.- ♠8        ♥432    ♦AQ72     ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?
c.- ♠void    ♥432    ♦AJ732    ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?


Thanky very much
Kind Regards,
Paul_S

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

it would make sense to use the same trump holding in a), b) c).

#a 2H
#b it is an inv. raise
#c it is an inv. raise, if you had the Q of diamonds instead of the J, ... I would be
arguing for a gf raise.

[mw64ahw]

None of the above are 2♥ bids for me. I work with total points, quick tricks and mod. losers which at a basic level give
a) 8 mod losers - a good limit raise
b) 7.5 mod losers - may go down in game opposite a flat minimum
c) 6.5 mod losers - look for game with slam an outside chance

[jillybean]

wow
I make a simple raise on all 3

[jdiana]

mw64ahw, on 2025-February-18, 07:56, said:

None of the above are 2♥ bids for me. I work with total points, quick tricks and mod. losers which at a basic level give
a) 8 mod losers - a good limit raise
b) 7.5 mod losers - may go down in game opposite a flat minimum
c) 6.5 mod losers - look for game with slam an outside chance

Can you explain how you count modified losers? I'm still trying to master this.

Thanks!

[jdiana]

paulsim, on 2025-February-18, 05:23, said:

Hi all,

When partner opens 1-Major and we do have a fit to raise:

Do we need a minimun HCP for a 3 card limit raise or just work with dummy points all the way?

1♥.........?

a.- ♠8        ♥987    ♦A732      ♣K9762:    2♥ is right?
b.- ♠8        ♥432    ♦AQ72     ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?
c.- ♠void    ♥432    ♦AJ732    ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?


Thanky very much
Kind Regards,
Paul_S

I'm no expert, so take this for what it's worth.

I don't think it's strictly about HCP. Where you go from there depends on what hand evaluation method you and your partner have chosen. If you count dummy points, there are a couple of different ways to do it. The basic Audrey Grant/beginner bridge approach is to count 1-3-5 for each singleton, doubleton and void. Marty Bergen counts 1 point for each singleton and 2 points for each doubleton (or 3 points if you have a 4th trump); for a void, he counts the number of trumps you have (so, e.g., in this case the void in © would only be worth 3 points, not 5).

Using the Audrey Grant method, (b) and © would be worth 12 and 13 points, respectively. Under Marty Bergen's method, (b) and © would be worth 11 points each, which is kind of interesting. The KnR for these hands is 10.9 and 11.25 points, respectively.

Using LTC is a little more complicated and depends on whether you count responder's losers, add them to the expected losers from opener, and subtract the total from 24 or 25, or use the cover card approach. I defer to mw64ahw on that one.

I think it also depends on how you define your limit raises. I think most people use 10-12 points but I'm pretty conservative and generally think of them as 11-12 points.

Having said all that, for me (a) is a simple raise; (b) and © would both be limit raises.

P.S. How do you make ( c ) not be the copyright symbol?

[mw64ahw]

jdiana, on 2025-February-18, 09:39, said:

Can you explain how you count modified losers? I'm still trying to master this.

Thanks!

At a basic level its the same as LTC, but instead of assigning 1 to each of the missing top 3 honours its (hence modified)
Ace 1.5
King 1
Queen 0.5
You can also assign quarters and eighths to combinations including Jacks and Tens

So for the hands above
a) ♠8 ♥987 ♦A732 ♣K9762: 1.5+3+1.5+2 = 8
b) ♠8 ♥432 ♦AQ72 ♣K9762: 1.5+3+1+2 = 7.5
c) ♠void ♥432 ♦AJ732 ♣K9762: 0+3+1.5+2 = 6.5
As you can observe the calculation factors in both shape and controls. Once a fit is found you may be able to make minor revaluation adjustments, but best to ignore these when you start using.

Now the expected contract level is 19-X-Y (LTC uses 18)
For an opening hand I factor in a max. 7.5 (some flattish balanced hands will have 8 & 3rd hand can be 8.5) giving
a) 19-8-7.5 =3.5-level
b) 19-8-7.5 =4-level
c) 19-6.5-7.5 =5-level
Not too complicated and something I think should be taught to any beginner rather than LTC.

There are some cursory writeups online
Upgrading and Improving Losing Trick Count

[jdiana]

mw64ahw, on 2025-February-18, 10:18, said:

At a basic level its the same as LTC, but instead of assigning 1 to each of the missing top 3 honours its (hence modified)
Ace 1.5
King 1
Queen 0.5
You can also assign quarters and eighths to combinations including Jacks and Tens

So for the hands above
a) ♠8 ♥987 ♦A732 ♣K9762: 1.5+3+1.5+2 = 8
b) ♠8 ♥432 ♦AQ72 ♣K9762: 1.5+3+1+2 = 7.5
c) ♠void ♥432 ♦AJ732 ♣K9762: 0+3+1.5+2 = 6.5
As you can observe the calculation factors in both shape and controls. Once a fit is found you may be able to make minor revaluation adjustments, but best to ignore these when you start using.

Now the expected contract level is 19-X-Y (LTC uses 18)
For an opening hand I factor in a max. 7.5 (some flattish balanced hands will have 8 & 3rd hand can be 8.5) giving
a) 19-8-7.5 =3.5-level
b) 19-8-7.5 =4-level
c) a) 19-6.5-7.5 =5-level
Not too complicated and something I think should be taught to any beginner rather than LTC.

There are some cursory writeups online
Upgrading and Improving Losing Trick Count

Thanks!

P.S. Just in case this is initially confusing for anyone else, mw64ahw is subtracting total expected losers from 19 to get the level to which we should bid, as opposed to subtracting them from 25 to get the total number of tricks we expect to take (from which we can determine the right level).

[DavidKok]

I was going to write a long response to this as I care a lot about hand evaluation, and think it is generally the most underrated and underrepresented of the four pillars of bridge. Regrettably, I remembered why I stopped doing that, or at least am trying to cut down on the long essays. So I'll keep it brief instead.

The hands with shortage in an unbid major and low HCP are suspect. These days opponents bid quickly with strength and major suit length, so we have a negative inference that partner does not hold [a minimum hand with little wastage in our short suit]. For this reason applying e.g. a simple version point adjustment, or control count, or MLTC, gives worse-than-normal odds. Bidding cautiously works well when partner has sufficient extras (partner will bid again) or a misfit in a side suit (we don't rate to make much). Meanwhile, upgrading aggressively based on shape works well if partner can't move over a simple raise and we can make game - the least likely scenario given our opponent's silence.

The main reason for bidding some or all of these hands as invitational or game forcing is to cover ourselves in case fourth hand preempts us with a lot of spades.

I would make a simple raise with hand a), and upgrade both b) and c) to invitational raises. Two great reasons for not upgrading to a game force are that 1) this means concealing the support (i.e. bites us if we do get that competitive auction we were worried about) since while I can show a simple raise and limit raise immediately, (much) stronger raises go through a 2/1 GF; and 2) if partner has both extras and the other major - which perfectly explains the opponents' silence - partner may well bid too much on a misfit deal.

In the past I used to bid Maas 2NT with these hands based partly on the MLTC (though it was a 'slightly' more complicated version than the one quoted upthread). I found that it lost sometimes, and gained almost never. Partner had the misfit or the extras almost always, and the hand type where partner would have passed 2♥ but we can make 4♥ almost never. For this reason I've stopped relying on MLTC with this hand type on this auction, and I now require both the requisite losers (for Maas: between 6 and 8.5) and a HCP minimum of 9 or significant compensation with 8 to make the bid.

P.S.: Notice how the Maas advantage of not having to commit to showing a heavy invitational raise or a minimum GF raise might come in to play if you think these hands are worth a game force, allowing us to show support immediately in anticipation of a competitive auction while also getting more information about partner's hand before committing to a strength range.

[akwoo]

I'm bidding 2♥ on all of these. Partner has a minimum and some spade wastage, and we might not even make 3♥.

I do make game tries pretty aggressively, so with a similar partner we'll tend to make it to game if we should. I suppose with a less aggressive partner I might evaluate the last one as a 4-card mixed raise.

[mw64ahw]

akwoo, on 2025-February-18, 12:58, said:

I'm bidding 2♥ on all of these. Partner has a minimum and some spade wastage, and we might not even make 3♥.

I do make game tries pretty aggressively, so with a similar partner we'll tend to make it to game if we should. I suppose with a less aggressive partner I might evaluate the last one as a 4-card mixed raise.

So ops play in 2♠ when 3♥ making or down 1 is the better score.

[akwoo]

mw64ahw, on 2025-February-18, 13:41, said:

So ops play in 2♠ when 3♥ making or down 1 is the better score.

I did not say I would sell out to 2♠! I'm allowed to bid more later...

But I acknowledge that going low now might make it easier for opps to find 3♠ over our 3♥.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure I understand where he said 2♥ is *all* he's going to bid, especially when the opponents find his short suit.

Sure, they find their fit at the 2 level, and they may compete to 3 when it's right more often than after 1♥-p-3♥; but on the other hand, partner will know better what to do when they do compete to 3.

I don't know where I read it, but someone said somewhere that it's easier to show more after underbidding than it is to show less after overbidding. I think akwoo's evaluations are based at least partially on that.

[and heh. Post updates while editing...]

I will admit I read the BW article, and it is fascinating. However, I do have two issues with it:

• Anything that claims more "losers" in a suit than one has cards isn't going to be easy to explain to bridge players (especially new bridge players); and
  
• I agree with GordonB (and not just because I stole his LaTeX code). MLTC as written in that article seems to be an attempt to "fix" the problems with basic LTC by adding some HCP (okay, ZZ/Queen points) evaluation to it. However, the problem isn't that LTC (or HCP or QT or QP) is bad; it's that there is no sane way to quantify a bridge hand with a simple number (even K&R). Any attempt to do so will fall into the "single mode of evaluation" fallacy to one extent or another; anybody who relies solely on a single mode of evaluation, no matter how complex, will fail on some hands.

I mean, even the C&CC don't limit themselves to a "single mode of evaluation" when making regulations (with their "8 HCP or Ro17" and equivalent phrasings).

I like cover cards when "guessing" whether to investigate slam, even knowing that partner won't evaluate their openers on a LTC scale (because it'll be pretty close).

I like LTC-based preempts (and cover cards by strong partner), if that's the evaluation method we have decided to use. Of course, I usually do that in a system where the preempts deny 6 HCP, and probably have at least one more loser than most people...

I really like LTC in the explaining role that MikeH used a few years ago: "A 6-loser hand is weak for an 18-count, so I will be conservative (for an 18 count) in my bidding". It's a great way of reducing 6 paragraphs of expert hand evaluation into something that a newer player can understand and even improve their hand evaluation by using as a crutch until it isn't needed any more, and can be said in 15 seconds.

Note that

• none of those cases are LTC my only, or even primary, mode of evaluation (so there's no "QQQQ shouldn't be the same as AAAA" issues)
  
• MLTC won't be of any more use than straight LTC (because the M is already contained in the other evaluations). In fact, it might be worse (because it duplicates some of the other evaluations).

[mw64ahw]

Much better to bid acurately rather than over/underbid

[thepossum]

a 2
b 2/3
c 3 - not quite confident enough to GF

I would have preferred the same trumps in each but at least we can get a few ruffs

[jdiana]

akwoo, on 2025-February-18, 12:58, said:

I'm bidding 2♥ on all of these. Partner has a minimum and some spade wastage, and we might not even make 3♥.

I do make game tries pretty aggressively, so with a similar partner we'll tend to make it to game if we should. I suppose with a less aggressive partner I might evaluate the last one as a 4-card mixed raise.

I can see bidding 2♥ with (b), especially since we played constructive raises. The void pushes ( c ) into limit raise territory for me.

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-18, 11:39, said:

The main reason for bidding some or all of these hands as invitational or game forcing is to cover ourselves in case fourth hand preempts us with a lot of spades.

I would make a simple raise with hand a), and upgrade both b) and c) to invitational raises. Two great reasons for not upgrading to a game force are that 1) this means concealing the support (i.e. bites us if we do get that competitive auction we were worried about) since while I can show a simple raise and limit raise immediately, . . .

This raises (again) the question of whether it's better to have a method that doesn't require us to go through 1NT with 3-card limit raises. (I think we're all assuming the OP plays some version of 2/1.) Nothing is simple in this game.

[akwoo]

I'm treating © as 4 card support.

But I'm sticking to treating all of these as a wide-ranging weak raise until opps show some spades.

[mike777]

 paulsim, on 2025-February-18, 05:23, said:

Hi all,

When partner opens 1-Major and we do have a fit to raise:

Do we need a minimun HCP for a 3 card limit raise or just work with dummy points all the way?

1♥.........?

a.- ♠8        ♥987    ♦A732      ♣K9762:    2♥ is right?
b.- ♠8        ♥432    ♦AQ72     ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?
c.- ♠void    ♥432    ♦AJ732    ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?


Thanky very much
Kind Regards,
Paul_S

I prefer to use Hcp and distribution points combined
Call it total points

A. Constructive raise= 2h, about 8-11
B and C; 3 card limit raise, goes thru 1NT then jump to 3H. About 12-13

I am probably more conservative in my major raises compared to many..

Using adjusted Losing Trick Count
A. Is about 8.5 adjusted LTC, right in the middle between constructive and limit raise.
B.is an 8 Adjusted LTC, typical 3 card limit raise.
C. Is an 7.5 adjusted LTC, a bit better than a typical limit raise, a bit..

[johnu]

paulsim, on 2025-February-18, 05:23, said:

1♥.........?

a.- ♠8        ♥987    ♦A732      ♣K9762:    2♥ is right?
b.- ♠8       ♥432    ♦AQ72     ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?
c.- ♠void    ♥432    ♦AJ732    ♣K9762:    2♥ or is it too strong for a simple raise?

My initial evaluation:
a: 2♥ - Not really close to a limit raise
b: 3♥ - A minimum limit raise, but too good for a single raise to 2♥
c: 3♥ - A void, and 2 five card suits, either of which could provide extra tricks.

There was also some discussion of the opponents getting into the bidding, most likely in spades.

Some short simulations assuming partner has 11-14 HCP, 5+ hearts. With 15+ HCP, it seems that opener will either bid game unilaterally or make a game try over 2♥.

a: 2♥ 85%    3♥ 58%   4♥ 28%
    2♠ 77%     3♠ 53%     4♠ 28%

b: 2♥ 96%     3♥ 87%     4♥ 55%
    2♠ 62%     3♠ 30%     4♠ 9%

c: 2♥ 98%     3♥ 88%     4♥ 65%
    2♠ 76%     3♠ 50%     4♠ 21%

What's interesting is that with b) and c), 4♥ looks good and if the opponents play in spades, the bad spade break (and extra HCP) decreases chances of success. a) is interesting because opposite a minimum 1♥, this is a very competitive part score hand. Of course, opposite better opening bids, 4♥ plays better, and spade contract will fare worse since you have more defense.