Help
It’s not often stated in articles on the LTC but the trump suit is generally considered to require at least eight cards in length with no partner holding less than three. https://en.m.wikiped...ing-Trick_Count To take it to the extreme you can hardly count a void in trumps as a no loser holding. So, a holding of KQxxx Qxx xx xxx would be 8 losers on the given bidding so KQxxx Qx xxx xxx can hardly be the same.
go to game or stop at 3?????
#22
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 560
- Joined: 2014-October-11
Posted 2019-February-01, 08:19
It’s not often stated in articles on the LTC but the trump suit is generally considered to require at least eight cards in length with no partner holding less than three. https://en.m.wikiped...ing-Trick_Count To take it to the extreme you can hardly count a void in trumps as a no loser holding. So, a holding of KQxxx Qxx xx xxx would be 8 losers on the given bidding so KQxxx Qx xxx xxx can hardly be the same.
#23
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 2016-July-30
Posted 2019-February-01, 09:50
I was aware of the 8 card fit rule - which is met here based on the jump to 3h - but not aware of the “each partner must have at least 3” rule. Is this rule univerally accepted? If so - i have been misapplying. I gave even used ltc as a guide if partner opens 4 of a suit - promising 8 plus.
Using judgement and feel “rather than more mechanical means” comes with more experience. In the meantime - trying to use as many methods of hand evaluation as possible. By and large - it has been helpful and amazingly accurate - but also had its fails.
Using judgement and feel “rather than more mechanical means” comes with more experience. In the meantime - trying to use as many methods of hand evaluation as possible. By and large - it has been helpful and amazingly accurate - but also had its fails.
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,036
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2019-February-01, 10:50
I use LTC as a guide to opening bid decisions on borderline hands: it is the least useful and least applied of the various metrics I use. I do not use LTC mid-auction. Now, I've played a lot of bridge and have played with some exceptional players, and discussed bridge with still more, so my valuation and judgment is informed more by what I learned from them than from reading books (tho I used to read many books). However, LTC is a blunt instrument mid auction.
Here, I think the decision is extremely close and wish the hand had been presented as a bidding problem with the South hand concealed. I don't think it possible to be sure that one is making the same call, seeing both hands, as one would seeing only the North hand.
With that in mind, I think that one bids game at imps, and should pass at mps.
At imps, there rates always to be a play for game opposite almost any 3H rebid hand. Vulnerable, bidding is clear. For one thing, your heart Queen pretty much guarantees that you won't get doubled even if the contract has no play. White, the decision is much closer, since a 50-50 game is take it or leave it. However, defence is harder than offence, and the opening lead often the hardest of all plays. So 50% games are often a bit better than that single dummy.
Mps, I'd pass. Mps is a game of pluses: I do realize that the OP scored 33% for passing, but analyzing bidding problems based on what actually happened is a mug's game.
Btw, flannery or no flannery, it is a mistake to argue that opener won't have 3 spades.
Axx AKJ10xx Kxx x: your bid over 1H
Anything but 3H is just silly.
x AKJ10xx Kxx AJx anything but 3H is just silly.
Btw, also, note that opener's heart suit was such that one will sometimes lose a trump trick, so anyone analyzing this hand who assumes otherwise doesn't know how to analyze hands. I gave opener a better heart suit in my examples:)
Here, I think the decision is extremely close and wish the hand had been presented as a bidding problem with the South hand concealed. I don't think it possible to be sure that one is making the same call, seeing both hands, as one would seeing only the North hand.
With that in mind, I think that one bids game at imps, and should pass at mps.
At imps, there rates always to be a play for game opposite almost any 3H rebid hand. Vulnerable, bidding is clear. For one thing, your heart Queen pretty much guarantees that you won't get doubled even if the contract has no play. White, the decision is much closer, since a 50-50 game is take it or leave it. However, defence is harder than offence, and the opening lead often the hardest of all plays. So 50% games are often a bit better than that single dummy.
Mps, I'd pass. Mps is a game of pluses: I do realize that the OP scored 33% for passing, but analyzing bidding problems based on what actually happened is a mug's game.
Btw, flannery or no flannery, it is a mistake to argue that opener won't have 3 spades.
Axx AKJ10xx Kxx x: your bid over 1H
Anything but 3H is just silly.
x AKJ10xx Kxx AJx anything but 3H is just silly.
Btw, also, note that opener's heart suit was such that one will sometimes lose a trump trick, so anyone analyzing this hand who assumes otherwise doesn't know how to analyze hands. I gave opener a better heart suit in my examples:)
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#25
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 973
- Joined: 2013-February-24
- Gender:Male
- Location:Dundee Scotland United Kingdom
- Interests:Occasional chess player. Dominoes
Posted 2019-February-01, 14:31
phoenixmj, on 2019-January-30, 23:29, said:
We play Flannery - so the 1 spade bid over a 1 heart open implies 5+ spades
What is north's next bid?????
Neither side is vulnerable.
Would you bid game? Why or Why Not?
What about the initial bidding sequence??
Any thoughts and help is appreciated. This is the kind of hand that is close to game. Tough call. Would you choose differently if playing a team game vs. just a regular matchpoint game?
A famous bridge master and writer once declared "When in doubt bid one more" My reasoning is not that 4♥ could make but because this will be the most
likely contract the rest of the field will be in. Its easy to forget that your real opponents are those sitting your way holding your cards.
"It is not enough to be a good player, you must also play well"
- Dr Tarrasch(1862-1934)German Chess Grandmaster
Bridge is a game where you have two opponents...and often three(!)
"Any palooka can take tricks with Aces and Kings; the true expert shows his prowess
by how he handles the two's and three's" - Mollo's Hideous Hog
- Dr Tarrasch(1862-1934)German Chess Grandmaster
Bridge is a game where you have two opponents...and often three(!)
"Any palooka can take tricks with Aces and Kings; the true expert shows his prowess
by how he handles the two's and three's" - Mollo's Hideous Hog
#27
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 2019-January-21
Posted 2019-February-02, 10:58
Using LTC, you get the same 6 loser hand with either 6 hearts and 3 clubs, or with 5-4, assuming you have a fit. But the 6-3 combo is worth a full extra trick since the 6th heart will surely take a trick plus provide extra insurance against a bad split, and another low club is unlikely to create a winner.
Also how does South bid his hand if he has the singleton A of spades and the AQx in diamonds? I treat this jump rebid as close to GF. North's Q of hearts plus touching honors in spades makes this an easy 4H contract.
Also how does South bid his hand if he has the singleton A of spades and the AQx in diamonds? I treat this jump rebid as close to GF. North's Q of hearts plus touching honors in spades makes this an easy 4H contract.
#28
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,366
- Joined: 2013-August-03
- Gender:Female
- Location:Variable private
- Interests:Cricket,Photography,Paediatrics and Community Medicine.
Posted 2019-February-02, 20:54
cherdano, on 2019-January-31, 00:25, said:
As always, the worst possible argument goes to losing trick count. Counting the North hands as "9 losers" makes it look the same as KQxxx xx xxx xxx. Calling it "3 cover cards" makes it look the same as Kxxxx xx Qxx Qxx.
North has a very nice KQ holding in his 5-card suit, and the always-great-to-have Q of trumps. It's a 4♥ bid, and I don't even consider it close. (Game is only ok and not great, but South also has a minimum 3♥ bid.)
North has a very nice KQ holding in his 5-card suit, and the always-great-to-have Q of trumps. It's a 4♥ bid, and I don't even consider it close. (Game is only ok and not great, but South also has a minimum 3♥ bid.)
SIR,personally,I fully agree with you.
#29
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,366
- Joined: 2013-August-03
- Gender:Female
- Location:Variable private
- Interests:Cricket,Photography,Paediatrics and Community Medicine.
Posted 2019-February-02, 20:54
cherdano, on 2019-January-31, 00:25, said:
As always, the worst possible argument goes to losing trick count. Counting the North hands as "9 losers" makes it look the same as KQxxx xx xxx xxx. Calling it "3 cover cards" makes it look the same as Kxxxx xx Qxx Qxx.
North has a very nice KQ holding in his 5-card suit, and the always-great-to-have Q of trumps. It's a 4♥ bid, and I don't even consider it close. (Game is only ok and not great, but South also has a minimum 3♥ bid.)
North has a very nice KQ holding in his 5-card suit, and the always-great-to-have Q of trumps. It's a 4♥ bid, and I don't even consider it close. (Game is only ok and not great, but South also has a minimum 3♥ bid.)
SIR,personally,I fully agree with you.
#30
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 2007-November-26
Posted 2019-February-07, 04:48
I find this kind of quite hard.
When thinking about it, I would like to distinguish two cases:
case (1) partner has the !SA
case (2) partner does not have !SA
in case (1) when p has !SA i expect to make most of the time (maybe 80%), but I think p will have the !SA just about 30% of the time. In the other 70%, case (2), I expect it to be harder to make as we have to build 3 tricks in the minors. Maybe i will be successful about 25% of the time when we miss the !SA
So, the total chance of success i estimate 30% x 80% + 70% x 25%, which is just above 40%, indicating that we should pass.
All the probabilities above I estimated from intuition. The question is how accurate they are. We can check it by simulation.
Simulating, I gave south 16-18 hcp, at least six hearts and no side suit of four or longer; the results.
- p is 55% likely to have !SA
- when p has the ace, we are about 60% likely to make
- without the !SA we make around 40% of the time
- our total chance to make 4 is slightly above 50%, so we should bid
Important takeaways:
- the initial probabilities i came up with from intuition are very wrong
- i figured p is less likely to have the spade ace because the opps have more spades than p, so they are more likely to hold that card. seems that i didnt consider enough the strength partner showed.
- i overestimated my chances in the happy case (with the spade ace)
- i underestimated my chances when we don't have the spade ace
- it seems better to bid, but the decision is very close.
When thinking about it, I would like to distinguish two cases:
case (1) partner has the !SA
case (2) partner does not have !SA
in case (1) when p has !SA i expect to make most of the time (maybe 80%), but I think p will have the !SA just about 30% of the time. In the other 70%, case (2), I expect it to be harder to make as we have to build 3 tricks in the minors. Maybe i will be successful about 25% of the time when we miss the !SA
So, the total chance of success i estimate 30% x 80% + 70% x 25%, which is just above 40%, indicating that we should pass.
All the probabilities above I estimated from intuition. The question is how accurate they are. We can check it by simulation.
Simulating, I gave south 16-18 hcp, at least six hearts and no side suit of four or longer; the results.
- p is 55% likely to have !SA
- when p has the ace, we are about 60% likely to make
- without the !SA we make around 40% of the time
- our total chance to make 4 is slightly above 50%, so we should bid
Important takeaways:
- the initial probabilities i came up with from intuition are very wrong
- i figured p is less likely to have the spade ace because the opps have more spades than p, so they are more likely to hold that card. seems that i didnt consider enough the strength partner showed.
- i overestimated my chances in the happy case (with the spade ace)
- i underestimated my chances when we don't have the spade ace
- it seems better to bid, but the decision is very close.