[oldman5757]

Easy pass, and I'll very happily take +170 right now, and will bet that even +140 will be average or better. I'd invite V at IMPs by bidding 3 ♦, but the risk of a minus is just too great on these cards at MPs.

[fromageGB]

This really does depend on your methods. With one partner it may be a 3442 shape, and then I see absolutely no reason to invite. With another partner where we open 1♣ on balanced hands, that bid of 2♥ shows a black shortage (singleton or void) 3 suiter, or alternatively 6 diamonds. NOW I am interested ...

[lexlogan]

Visualize partner with a perfect minimum, such as
AKx Qxxx K10xx xx .

Game is pretty much a laydown if trumps break 3-2 and has good chances if they don't. I'm going to invite -- partner would presumably pass with the hand shown, but the hands he accepts on will be stronger and should also have good play.

My one problem is that the obvious invitation, 2NT, looks bad; and 3D is typically played as forcing. So I'll break a rule and invite via 3H despite only 4 trumps. If partner raised on 3, these are the right hands for a Moysian fit.

Describing this hand as "9 losers" is, IMO, absurd. 3+ cover cards looks more like it.

[the hog]

Easy pass. 9 losers and even possibly 3 card support.

[mike777]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 3 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

N     S
1♦ - 1♥
2♥ - ?

---

1) Not sure why saying 9 losers is absurd...it looks like 9 losers. If you hate this method and you have a better method ok.....but lets say what it means.

2) Looks like In=out valuation tells us poor hand.


3) Pard may only have 3 trumps.


4) With all that said...easy invite if partner opens very sound in first seat, but no one does in BBF.

[hanp]

Quote

2) Looks like In=out valuation tells us poor hand.

I agree and I don't even know what in-and-out evaluation means.

[stuff deleted by adminstrator as it was inappropriate tone for this forum - inquiry]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2009-March-05, 12:47

[kenrexford]

LTC+LTC is an impure evaluation.

LTC+covers is MUCH better.

Whatever this hand is, it is three covers. If partner's bidding can be relied upon as showing some LTC range, then the math is simple. If he has seven losers, you expect to lose 4 tricks in the play.

So, you need a 6-loser hand from partner for game to make.

Axxx-Axxx-Axx-xx is an opening bid, with 8 losers. If partner can have a 6-loser hand, then his range is perhaps 6-8 losers.

If partner must have a 4-card diamond suit to open 1♦, and if he must have four hearts to raise in this sequence, he can still have an 8-loser hand (3442, for example).

If partner must be unbalanced to open 1♦ and must have four hearts to raise in this sequence, then the odds are better that partner does not have eight losers, making the 3-level safer. Plus, if the standard range grabs 8-loser hands for normal openings, but the 1♦ opening per force of shape does not have 8 losers except perhaps very rarely, then Opener (if both partners understand this) can more often make a mere simple raise with a six-loser hand, because of the safety in asking questions for Responder. I usually evaluate this sequence with an unbalanced diamond opening as showing 6-7 losers.

None of this has anything to do what Responder's LTC, as that is known to be relatively meaningless. The key is Opener's LTC and Responder's CC count, with this pattern.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Mar 5 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

LTC+LTC is an impure evaluation.

LTC+covers is MUCH better.

Whatever this hand is, it is three covers.  If partner's bidding can be relied upon as showing some LTC range, then the math is simple.  If he has seven losers, you expect to lose 4 tricks in the play.

So, you need a 6-loser hand from partner for game to make.

Axxx-Axxx-Axx-xx is an opening bid, with 8 losers.  If partner can have a 6-loser hand, then his range is perhaps 6-8 losers.

If partner must have a 4-card diamond suit to open 1♦, and if he must have four hearts to raise in this sequence, he can still have an 8-loser hand (3442, for example).

If partner must be unbalanced to open 1♦ and must have four hearts to raise in this sequence, then the odds are better that partner does not have eight losers, making the 3-level safer.  Plus, if the standard range grabs 8-loser hands for normal openings, but the 1♦ opening per force of shape does not have 8 losers except perhaps very rarely, then Opener (if both partners understand this) can more often make a mere simple raise with a six-loser hand, because of the safety in asking questions for Responder.  I usually evaluate this sequence with an unbalanced diamond opening as showing 6-7 losers.

None of this has anything to do what Responder's LTC, as that is known to be relatively meaningless.  The key is Opener's LTC and Responder's CC count, with this pattern.

Thank you, Ken. I have been saying that for years. I don't know where LTC + LTC comes from, but it seems to have been around for quite some time. I have never understood why many see merit in that evaluation method - it seems totally flawed.

Losing trick count by opener and cover cards by responder makes much more sense.

As Ken stated, this hand has 3 known cover cards - the AK of hearts and the Q of diamonds. Partner is known to have length in both red suits, so these cards are working. If partner has a minimum opening bid - typically 7 losers - he will decline our invitiation But if he has an above average opening bid (in the context of a single raise) - 6 losers - he will accept our invitation.

He could have a subminimum opening - 8 losers. Even then we might have play for 9 tricks, and the invite is still warranted.

I would invite game by bidding 3♦.

[ArtK78]

hanp, on Mar 5 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

Deleted by adminstrator

Why so nasty? If you don't like Mike's posts, don't read them. But at least be civil about it.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2009-March-05, 12:48

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

hanp, on Mar 5 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

Deleted by adminstator

Why so nasty? If you don't like Mike's posts, don't read them. But at least be civil about it.

This is not a new objection. Civility has not worked on it in the past.

Besides, that was really funny.

[Echognome]

hanp, on Mar 4 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

Quote

2) Looks like In=out valuation tells us poor hand.

I agree and I don't even know what in-and-out evaluation means.

Do you still agree if I tell you that "in-and-out evaluation" means "are your points in partner's suits or out of them?" I mean this isn't exactly rocket science, but apparently it's a difficult concept for some to grasp... By saying that I'm referring to the original quote that In=out would tell us this is a poor hand.

That got a big "huh?" from me. Flat shape might tell us to devalue the hand. Not arguing there. But in-out? Wow. Bizarro world.

[Phil]

In-and-out evaluation simply means that I'm making a choice between a double-double, cheeseburger or hamburger and if I want grilled onions on it.

For the uninitiated:

In and Out

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 5 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

LTC+LTC is an impure evaluation.

LTC+covers is MUCH better.

Whatever this hand is, it is three covers.  If partner's bidding can be relied upon as showing some LTC range, then the math is simple.  If he has seven losers, you expect to lose 4 tricks in the play.

So, you need a 6-loser hand from partner for game to make.

Axxx-Axxx-Axx-xx is an opening bid, with 8 losers.  If partner can have a 6-loser hand, then his range is perhaps 6-8 losers.

If partner must have a 4-card diamond suit to open 1♦, and if he must have four hearts to raise in this sequence, he can still have an 8-loser hand (3442, for example).

If partner must be unbalanced to open 1♦ and must have four hearts to raise in this sequence, then the odds are better that partner does not have eight losers, making the 3-level safer.  Plus, if the standard range grabs 8-loser hands for normal openings, but the 1♦ opening per force of shape does not have 8 losers except perhaps very rarely, then Opener (if both partners understand this) can more often make a mere simple raise with a six-loser hand, because of the safety in asking questions for Responder.  I usually evaluate this sequence with an unbalanced diamond opening as showing 6-7 losers.

None of this has anything to do what Responder's LTC, as that is known to be relatively meaningless.  The key is Opener's LTC and Responder's CC count, with this pattern.

Thank you, Ken. I have been saying that for years. I don't know where LTC + LTC comes from, but it seems to have been around for quite some time. I have never understood why many see merit in that evaluation method - it seems totally flawed.

Losing trick count by opener and cover cards by responder makes much more sense.

As Ken stated, this hand has 3 known cover cards - the AK of hearts and the Q of diamonds. Partner is known to have length in both red suits, so these cards are working. If partner has a minimum opening bid - typically 7 losers - he will decline our invitiation But if he has an above average opening bid (in the context of a single raise) - 6 losers - he will accept our invitation.

He could have a subminimum opening - 8 losers. Even then we might have play for 9 tricks, and the invite is still warranted.

I would invite game by bidding 3♦.

I think I can explain this somewhat, Art.

Part of the "problem" with LTC analysis is in deciding who has the base "KTC" and who has the contributing "cover cards." Sometimes, like in this case, it is easy. Generally, the more unbalanced and stronger hand is the "LTC" hand and the other is the "cover card" hand.

When you cannot figure out this solution, then "LTC+LTC" is somewhat useful. Add losers for each side and subtract from 24. Thus, a 7-loser hand (a minimum/average opener) plus a 7-loser hand (and minimum/average GF) yields a sum of 14. 24-14=10, so game should make.

The trick is that CC analysis is better, IF you can figure out who has the "base" hand and who has the "bitch" hand. Plus, you need to recognize some strange holdings, like the usefulness of shortness as covers being dependent upon lengths of trumps and partner's loser type in that suit (a stiff opposite Axx is a pure two covers, but almost a negative cover opposite KQx). Or, Qx might be a cover for a loser in a different suit, in a sense, because it enables AKx to create a pitch somewhere. Stuff like that.

[kenrexford]

My position on the other issue, the "in and out evaluation" idea:

I don't like in-and-out evaluations, even if they make sense. Personally, I would rather have my partner lie to me and pretend, giving me good marks as to my in-and-out evaluation. Especially at the time. Perhaps later, over a cigarette, partner might make suggestions as to how I might improve my technique, but the worst thing is to have partner flipping out at the time, which simply blows my concentration and makes it really difficult to score well.

Granted, a poor in-and-out evaluation might cause a greater losing trick count for me. But, I think that my trick count is acceptable, which suggests that my in-and-out evaluation must be at least tolerable. I mean, I am fairly able to plan for a good squeeze when that is needed, by visualization of what I will need to do. I am fairly competent during the bidding process of accurately describing my assets to partner, and my weak points, which usually results in us reaching a good spot. I think that's a large part of the game.

[Phil]

For those that can't follow this discussion:

In-and-out evaluation means reevaluating your hand as the auction progresses. Before the bidding started, you started with:

1. Ten HCP

2. Useful AKT and QJx combination (certainly this hand is better than Axx KTxx Qxx Jxx).

3. The worst shape possible. Any modification in shape (aside from moving the 4th heart somewhere else) would be a positive.

As the bidding progresses we hear "1♦" from partner. This improves our hand somewhat since our QJx is now facing known length. The extent of the improvement is hard to gauge, and there's not a lot of benefit to trying to calculate this at the table at the time.

When we hear a heart raise, it improves our hand a little bit more, although partner is boxing their hand as a minimum. Now, we have some degree of a double fit.

Early in the thread there was an intelligent discussion about whether or not these factors constitute a game invitation.

Unfortunately the thread has been hijacked by debating several methods of bean counting.

[ArtK78]

Ken, in my opinion, the opening bidder always evaluates his hand based on LTC and the responder always evaluates his hand based on cover cards.

Phil, I don't believe the thread has been hijacked. The entire point of this thread is "How do you evaluate this hand?" Therefore, various methods of hand evaluation should be considered. I have my favorite method, and I conclude that it is an invite. Others had decided differently based on their methods of hand evaluation.

[rogerclee]

Phil, on Mar 5 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

For those that can't follow this discussion:

In-and-out evaluation means reevaluating your hand as the auction progresses. Before the bidding started, you started with:

1. Ten HCP

2. Useful AKT and QJx combination (certainly this hand is better than Axx KTxx Qxx Jxx).

3. The worst shape possible. Any modification in shape (aside from moving the 4th heart somewhere else) would be a positive.

As the bidding progresses we hear "1♦" from partner. This improves our hand somewhat since our QJx is now facing known length. The extent of the improvement is hard to gauge, and there's not a lot of benefit to trying to calculate this at the table at the time.

When we hear a heart raise, it improves our hand a little bit more, although partner is boxing their hand as a minimum. Now, we have some degree of a double fit.

Early in the thread there was an intelligent discussion about whether or not these factors constitute a game invitation.

Unfortunately the thread has been hijacked by debating several methods of bean counting.

Agree with this post mostly, though this is not how I was introduced to "in and out" evaluation really. It is just a principle that having soft cards in your suits and outside AK's in your short suits is much better than the other way around. Pretty simple.

Basically the biggest thing to take away from this hand is that 4333 shape in this kind of auction is very bad, perhaps even bad enough to add one to your loser trick count total.

[awm]

From a losing trick count viewpoint, I'd look at the hand like this.

Partner is fairly likely to be 3442 on the bidding. With this shape, we potentially will lose three spades, two clubs, a heart, and two diamonds. Each cover card that partner has will reduce this count by one, so partner basically needs five cover cards for game to be good. A cover card translates to roughly three high card points most of the time (♥Q is a cover, but other covers on this hand are usually kings or aces) so partner needs to have more than a balanced fourteen for game to be good.

This also holds roughly true if you construct hands; even very prime fourteens like:

♠Axx
♥Qxxx
♦Axxx
♣Ax

don't really make for good games (I suppose if partner's diamonds include the ten-nine and the king is onside and hearts break 3-2, you can make game).

Of course, partner could also have some more useful distribution like 3451. Then four cover cards would suffice. But with a singleton club and four hearts, partner probably is rebidding 3♥ on prime 14s...

And none of this mentions the possibility that partner has only three hearts, which (even if he has singleton club) pretty much demolish our chances at game.

[hanp]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

hanp, on Mar 5 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

Deleted by adminstrator

Why so nasty? If you don't like Mike's posts, don't read them. But at least be civil about it.

I didn't think my post was particularly nasty. I think I made it very clear that I was annoyed with mike777's post without using foul language or saying anything personal about mike777. I only reacted to the quality of his recurring posts.

Of course I have no problem with inquiry's decision to remove part of my post, it is his job to make such decisions and I don't envy him.

[hanp]

Echognome, on Mar 5 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

That got a big "huh?" from me.

That part of my post wasn't very serious, obviously I don't have an opinion on in-out evaluation if I don't even know what it means.

However, if this evaluation method tells you that the hand is closer to bidding game then to passing then I think something is wrong. I think this hand is a pass, although it isn't that far removed from an invite.

I of course agree with you that the actual hand is better than, say, the same hand with the minors reversed. If this is what in-out evaluation is about then it does seem like it could be a worthwhile evaluation. I truly had no idea what it was.