[Echognome]

hanp, on Mar 5 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

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.

This is what my understanding of the method is about.

I don't have a hard-set evaluation, but rather a more fluid one. Of course my judgment is my own and yours may differ. I was more grinding an ax about using an evaluation, such as LTC, which is ambivalent to honor location.

I can absolutely respect someone disagrees to invite and the judgment will depend a lot on style and what hands they expect from partner for the auction thus far (and what hands they rule out because they would expect partner would make a different call). For example, I would expect if partner had a 4=3=5=1 hand, he would bid 2♥ with a minimum and 1♠ with extras (planning on bidding 2♥ over a 1NT or 2♦ call by me). I wouldn't expect partner to have a 3=4=3=3 hand. He could obviously have a 3=4=4=2 hand. Things like that.

Does your answer change if you are playing IMPs?

[rogerclee]

Echognome, on Mar 5 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Does your answer change if you are playing IMPs?

I don't know if you are asking everyone in general or just Han, but I would even pass vul at IMPs.

[Echognome]

rogerclee, on Mar 5 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

Echognome, on Mar 5 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Does your answer change if you are playing IMPs?

I don't know if you are asking everyone in general or just Han, but I would even pass vul at IMPs.

I was asking Han in particular, but am, of course, welcoming comments from anyone.

[P_Marlowe]

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

LTC+LTC is an impure evaluation.

LTC+covers is MUCH better.

<snip>

Cover card concept works well with LTC.

You should use cover cards instead of the LTC, if
you have a bal. hand.

So I would not say LTC + cover cards is better
than LTC + LTC, just that you are better of using
LTC + cover cards, if you hold a bal. hand.

If you are unbal., you should stick with LTC + LTC.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hanp]

I'm not as confident as Roger, I think it is quite close red at IMPs.

[Tomi2]

I just made a small sample:

case 1: Opener must have 5+♦ and 4♥ and 11-13 hcp (as i said we invite light)
tricks %
=<7 6
8 15
9 36
>=10 43

so if we say we invite and pd will accept 50% of the times, he will most likely do this on say about 35 hands where we make and 15 we will go down
on other 50 he will reject where we make 10+ tricks 8 times but we are overboard 21 times

this means our score will improve 35 times and we lose 36 times. So its worth to invite if we:
trust in partners openings
trust in partners judgement
trust in our declarer play
trust in opponents erros in defense

now i changed the settings to 4+ dias and 11-14 hcp
tricks %
7- 15
8 31
9 26
10+ 28


finaly i changed settings to 3+ hearts and 11-14
7- 17
8 29
9 25
10+ 27

you see you make game less then you have only 8 or less tricks

now again 5♦4♥ but we open with 12 and invite with 15, so 12-14 is the range
7- 1
8 5
9 29
10+ 65

you see your acction mostly depends on your system and your partners stlye. if you can count that with losers or covercards or so, thats nice, i cant, i try to imagine possible hands for pd and try to find out how often game makes.

playing 1st style you can afford to invite.
2nd and 3rd style should pass and 4th style can shot to game here

was only 100 boards each but it was the results i expected

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

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.

What?!?

So, if Opener has a hand like 4-3-3-3 shape with three Aces, maybe Axxx-Axx-Axx-xxx, he calls the hand a 9-loser hand, which is horrible.

If Responder has a hand with 5521 shape with two Kings and an Ace, like Kxxxx-Kxxxx-xx-A, he has to figure out what number of covers he has for Opener? Because Opener has a 9-loser hand, Responder needs to figure out how to get six covers out of this holding?

"Always" is a strangely disappointing word for you to use.

[hanp]

Tomi2, on Mar 5 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

[simulation results]

The assumption that opener has 5+ diamonds seems rather arbitrary, especially given that the OP made no mention of this and this is posted in the SAYC and 2/1 forum. I think you should only assume that opener has at least as many diamonds as clubs, and 3 diamonds only when 4432.

Also, it seems like a good idea to take into account that neither opponent has doubled or overcalled in spades.

[ArtK78]

In my experience, LTC and cover cards works best after you have established an 8 card fit. Generally speaking, balanced hands can usually be valued better using basic point count than losing trick count.

[CSGibson]

for me this is a matter of style. If you open and invite light, this is a pass. If you believe in sound, Roth-like openers, this is a marginal invite. I would pass with most of my partners at matchpoints, but invite with some others that I know are conservative by nature.

[mtvesuvius]

We open all 12s and some decent 11s. I wound up passing, and was a little distraught after partner came down with AKx Qxxx AT9xx x. The K♦ was on, so it made 6.

[rogerclee]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 7 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

We open all 12s and some decent 11s. I wound up passing, and was a little distraught after partner came down with AKx Qxxx AT9xx x. The K♦ was on, so it made 6.

This is a normal 3♥ bid (albeit a minimum).

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Mar 3 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

The almighty Joe Grue passed on this auction with Axx Axxx Axx xxx. And I think his partner made 2.

was there a lead out of turn?

[hotShot]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 7 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

We open all 12s and some decent 11s. I wound up passing, and was a little distraught after partner came down with AKx Qxxx AT9xx x. The K♦ was on, so it made 6.

If you knew that over 1♥ partner would bid:

- 1♠ if he had 4 ♠s and
- 1NT with 3433, 3442 or 2443 shape and
- 2♦or 1NT with a semi-balanced 5332 hand and
- 2♣ holding 1345

than 2♥ would show an unbalanced hand with 4♥. The shape would be 4441, 5431 or 5440.

Otherwise opener should probably bid 3♥.

[ArtK78]

rogerclee, on Mar 7 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Mar 7 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

We open all 12s and some decent 11s. I wound up passing, and was a little distraught after partner came down with AKx Qxxx AT9xx x. The K♦ was on, so it made 6.

This is a normal 3♥ bid (albeit a minimum).

Now, this is a problem.

Everyone is opening all sorts of crap. So, when they hold a real opening bid, such as this one, they jump raise to 3♥ to differentiate this hand from the crap they normally open. (Parenthetically, the opening hand is a 6 loser hand by LTC, which is an above-average opening. The 1♥ response improves the ♥Q somewhat.)

I would raise to 2♥ on these cards (knowing that I had something in reserve) and I would expect my partner to invite on the other hand. Clearly, after bidding "just" 2♥, I would accept any invitation.

Everyone on this site would respond 1♥ to 1♦ if they held Txxx Txxx Jx KJx. Good luck in 3♥.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Mar 7 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Mar 7 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Mar 7 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

We open all 12s and some decent 11s. I wound up passing, and was a little distraught after partner came down with AKx Qxxx AT9xx x. The K♦ was on, so it made 6.

This is a normal 3♥ bid (albeit a minimum).

Now, this is a problem.

Everyone is opening all sorts of crap. So, when they hold a real opening bid, such as this one, they jump raise to 3♥ to differentiate this hand from the crap they normally open. (Parenthetically, the opening hand is a 6 loser hand by LTC, which is an above-average opening. The 1♥ response improves the ♥Q somewhat.)

I would raise to 2♥ on these cards (knowing that I had something in reserve) and I would expect my partner to invite on the other hand. Clearly, after bidding "just" 2♥, I would accept any invitation.

Everyone on this site would respond 1♥ to 1♦ if they held Txxx Txxx Jx KJx. Good luck in 3♥.

Art, even LTC ("6 losers"), which in my opinion is not a useful means of hand evaluation, agrees that this hand is within the 3♥ range. I would say that if you think this is only a 2♥ rebid, then you need to rethink your hand evaluation, it is very easy for you to miss game/slam by bidding 2♥. Of course bidding 3♥ can work out poorly and your example hand is noted, but that is why I try to use probability to determine when a call will work well and when it will work poorly, then make an educated guess about which one is better.

[Codo]

Art is right of course. When you open on any excuse, this must influence you later bidding.

I see no reason why a style where this is a max. 2 Heart rebid and pd will inivite should be less successful then a style where you need to rebid 3 Heart with hands like that- it is just another philosophy.

[hackenbush]

lexlogan, on Mar 4 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

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.

This seems like a flawed tautology. The "better" hands partner accept with will often have soft holdings in the black suits and work out less well.

[jmcw]

rogerclee, on Mar 3 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Easy pass.

Yep. It gets even easier if P has only 3♥

[jmcw]

hackenbush, on Mar 12 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

lexlogan, on Mar 4 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

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.

This seems like a flawed tautology. The "better" hands partner accept with will often have soft holdings in the black suits and work out less well.

What about the imperfect minimum

---