[Echognome]

♠AKJxxx
♥xx
♦xx
♣xxx

Playing a fairly standard 2/1 partner opens 1♦ and you respond 1♠. He rebids 2♠ and now it's back over to you.

Pick your choice among the different poll options.

[pclayton]

Poll is omitted.

I know the hand and I'm already on record for 4♠.

[Echognome]

pclayton, on Jul 30 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

Poll is omitted.

I know the hand and I'm already on record for 4♠.

Took me >1 minute to add a poll.

[mikeh]

I like to play that 2N asks partner to bid the cheapest suit in which he would not accept a short suit game-try, so that bids by me of 3 suit, instead of 2N, are hsgt's.

However, none of this science helps at all

LTC certainly rules out a pass: while AKJxxx is not a no-loser suit initially, it seems reasonable to consider it such after the raise, so we have a LTC of 7. Partner's minimum opening should also approximate to a LTC of 7, for a combined LTC of 14 which, when subtracted from 24, leaves us with an expectation of 10 tricks.

At mps, I'd swing low, because I am not convinced that game is more likely than not, but I think it is close enough that I will bid it at imps, even if not vulnerable.. if only because I think aggression in game bidding is simply a better overall strategy at imps than at mps.

Since I don't have a gametry that fits this hand, and any gt I made up might help the opps more than our side, I will blast at imps and pass at mps.

[cherdano]

I would bid 2N, asking for trump length and min/max.

[gwnn]

I like these 3S bids as semi preemptive, I'm telling pard that I have extra trump length and just a little more than what I have promised. He can raise if he want, but he will not usually do so. From the listed option I will try 2NT "ogust"

[Apollo81]

I like 3♠ invitational, or some sort of asking game try as opposed to a descriptive game try.

[awm]

I would bid 3♠ opposite most of my partners.

I think this depends a bit on style; in particular:

(1) Does 2♠ from opener always promise four cards or a side singleton, or is it often bid on three card spades and a balanced hand?

(2) How aggressively does partner jump-raise spades with four spades and a singleton but fairly minimum values?

In most of my partnerships we raise 1♠ to 2♠ quite frequently on three cards and a balanced hand, and we are pretty aggressive in making jump raises with hands with side singletons and four trumps, so I think the more passive approach of 3♠ (or even pass at MP scoring) makes a lot more sense. Opposite a partner whose 2♠ rebid is almost always four cards and who doesn't jump raise unless his hand is worth 18-19 in support, the more aggressive path of bidding 4♠ (maybe 3♠ at MP) is much more reasonable.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Jul 31 2008, 05:10 AM, said:

I like to play that 2N asks partner to bid the cheapest suit in which he would not accept a short suit game-try, so that bids by me of 3 suit, instead of 2N, are hsgt's.

However, none of this science helps at all

LTC certainly rules out a pass: while AKJxxx is not a no-loser suit initially, it seems reasonable to consider it such after the raise, so we have a LTC of 7. Partner's minimum opening should also approximate to a LTC of 7, for a combined LTC of 14 which, when subtracted from 24, leaves us with an expectation of 10 tricks.

At mps, I'd swing low, because I am not convinced that game is more likely than not, but I think it is close enough that I will bid it at imps, even if not vulnerable.. if only because I think aggression in game bidding is simply a better overall strategy at imps than at mps.

Since I don't have a gametry that fits this hand, and any gt I made up might help the opps more than our side, I will blast at imps and pass at mps.

Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument.

Partner's 7 losers might include Qxxx which we have now double counted. In fact partner is odds on to have the queen if he has four trumps and probably a favourite with three cards since he might have chosen some other action with values in other suits.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument.

Partner's 7 losers might include Qxxx which we have now double counted.

How have we done that?

[mike777]

4s, game try.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument.

Partner's 7 losers might include Qxxx which we have now double counted.

How have we done that?

We are counting AKJxxx as a no loser suit so that we have 7 losers.

Then we are counting partner's presumed seven losers with or without the ♠Q to determine whether or not we have enough for game.

If partner has ♠Q then that is fewer values and hence cover cards outside trumps that he is likely to have.

If we count 7 losers outside trumps then it seems better to think in terms of partner's cover cards. We have nothing so we need partner to cover four of our seven losers outside trumps.

This seems a lot to expect a possible minimum weak NT hand to cover. Even more when we consider that partner is a favourite to have the nearly useless ♠Q.

[jchiu]

Never seen this hand before, but 4♠ wtp?

[Rossoneri]

I am a simple person: 4♠ it is for me.

[rogerclee]

I kinda wanna bid 3NT. But not in real life.

In real life I just make some sort of general game try.

[blackshoe]

Qxxx is 2 1/2 losers. It's also, given we have the suit, one cover card. But the re-evaluation of responder's hand from 8 losers to 7, once opener raises, is based on opener presumably holding 4 trumps. Whether he has the queen or not is not relevant to that. On the basis of the LTC, then, one might jump to 4♠, considering that the LTC says we have a decent chance (not a certainty!) of making ten tricks.

OTOH, as responder I would look at my cover cards: I have 3 (the ♠AK and the two doubletons) and if partner has 7 losers, I can't cover enough to make 4 a good bid. So I'll bid 3♣ (long suit trial in clubs).

OTGH, opener's bidding suggests he has 3 cover cards, again not enough for game. Maybe passing (or 3♠ to play/preemptive) is the right move.

IMO, LTC + Cover Cards is more accurate than LTC alone.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

Qxxx is 2 1/2 losers. It's also, given we have the suit, one cover card. But the re-evaluation of responder's hand from 8 losers to 7, once opener raises, is based on opener presumably holding 4 trumps. Whether he has the queen or not is not relevant to that. On the basis of the LTC, then, one might jump to 4♠, considering that the LTC says we have a decent chance (not a certainty!) of making ten tricks.

OTOH, as responder I would look at my cover cards: I have 3 (the ♠AK and the two doubletons) and if partner has 7 losers, I can't cover enough to make 4 a good bid. So I'll bid 3♣ (long suit trial in clubs).

OTGH, opener's bidding suggests he has 3 cover cards, again not enough for game. Maybe passing (or 3♠ to play/preemptive) is the right move.

IMO, LTC + Cover Cards is more accurate than LTC alone.

In terms of cover cards the problems are:

1. ♠ AKxxxx might be three cover cards

2. A doubleton might or might not cover a loser. There is a decent chance that if partner is 4-4-3-2 that one of our doubletons coincides with partner's doubleton - a certainty if partner turns out to be 5-4-2-2 or that the doubleton is opposite something partner is also not counting as a loser like KQx.

[blackshoe]

No system is perfect.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Jul 31 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

Isn't there a flaw in that losing trick count argument.

Isn't there a flaw in all Losing Trick Count arguments?