Do I count losing tricks or playing tricks
#1
Posted 2017-February-04, 01:51
With distributional hands that I have looked at, usually (by my counting, which may be incorrect) the number of losing tricks = 13 - the number of playing tricks. The relationship only seems to break down with more balanced hands.
When deciding the level at which I preempt, one source will say I need to be within x tricks of my contract depending on vulnerability, but when deciding about overcalls the usual guideline is to evaluate your hand by counting losers.
#2
Posted 2017-February-04, 06:38
maybe a suit like 65432 is zero pt but only three lt. in that case pt is better especially with weak hands. otoh with two suits like akxxx you can assume that p has a fit for one of them so counting two tricks in each suit is too pessimistic
#3
Posted 2017-February-04, 11:11
isn't it so that it doesn't matter because pt =13 - lt?
That's what I assumed. When brushing up my preemptive bids, my reference says you should be within 2-3-4 PTs of your bid contract Red-Amber-Green. But when overcalling (jump, Landy, Michaels etc) another reference says you require an 'x' loser hand. And when deciding on a strong opener I am guided to count PTs.
I constructed several hands with your 65432 suit, and the LTs were always 13-the PTs. Counting losers tends to be easier. Are there any types of bidding situation where I should use one method over the other, or are they interchangeable?
(I appreciate that there are other factors such as SQT, honours in partner's suit etc, xxx x vs. xx xx in side suits etc. )
#4
Posted 2017-February-04, 12:20
All that takes time and mental anguish. Perhaps not for a beginner, but if you are starting to ask these questions that may be the time to make the step up.
Eventually you will probably ditch them all in favour of instinct
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mstr-mnding) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.
"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"
"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
#5
Posted 2017-February-04, 14:28
#7
Posted 2017-February-05, 01:01
helene_t, on 2017-February-04, 14:28, said:
I am starting to use a method like that with my partner, but using playing tricks and the rule of 2-3-4. Partner knows (or should) how many PTs I have and estimate how many he can add with quick tricks and ruff.
1eyedjack, on 2017-February-04, 12:20, said:
Eventually you will probably ditch them all in favour of instinct
In a lot of areas I am using 'scaffolds' like this to help my judgment. In time I hope to be able to shed them all. I still occasionally read bridge articles where the author says "now after partner's bid your hand has become huge" and I have to use my 'scaffold' on my so-so hand to see why.
#8
Posted 2017-February-05, 04:50
* "beginner" includes people who have been playing for 30 years
#9
Posted 2017-February-05, 04:55
So let us start with some definitions here. I am going to give you a hand: ♠AKQxxxx ♥- ♦Kxx ♣Kxx. How many PTs do you evaluate this to be? How many losers? I get 8 PTs and 4 losers under all of the methods. Indeed I have chosen this hand specifically because it evaluates identically for LTC/MLTC and all forms of PT evaluation. Presumably your evaluation is different and that might help us to place the discussion into the correct context.
#11
Posted 2017-February-05, 15:00
#12
Posted 2017-February-06, 01:44
#13
Posted 2017-February-06, 02:15
Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:55, said:
You could use the EBU's rule and come up with five.
I held almost that hand yesterday; ♠AKQ1093 ♥K82 ♦AK74 ♣ -. I think that when it is marginal whether to open 2♣ (assuming that is your strong opening), counting losers can be helpful. This hand doesn't really look like a 2♣ opening, but then when you notice that it is a 3-loser hand, you will probably choose to open 2♣. Also there are hands which partner will pass (2 red queens?) with which game is pretty much a lock.
Another way of deciding whether to open (at the 1 level) marginal hands is the rule of 20. If the HCP plus the lengths of the two longest suits adds up to 20, then if you are in doubt, open. Some players use the rule of 19. This is not to say that a rule of 20 hand is always an opening bid, just that the rule can help when the decision is close.
#14
Posted 2017-February-06, 10:52
Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 02:15, said:
I held almost that hand yesterday; ♠AKQ1093 ♥K82 ♦AK74 ♣ -. I think that when it is marginal whether to open 2♣ (assuming that is your strong opening), counting losers can be helpful. This hand doesn't really look like a 2♣ opening, but then when you notice that it is a 3-loser hand, you will probably choose to open 2♣. Also there are hands which partner will pass (2 red queens?) with which game is pretty much a lock.
Another way of deciding whether to open (at the 1 level) marginal hands is the rule of 20. If the HCP plus the lengths of the two longest suits adds up to 20, then if you are in doubt, open. Some players use the rule of 19. This is not to say that a rule of 20 hand is always an opening bid, just that the rule can help when the decision is close.
#15
Posted 2017-February-06, 11:24
msjennifer, on 2017-February-06, 10:52, said:
You obviously didn't read my post. I said that the Rule of 20 was useful for helping to decide whether to open marginal hands. Marginal is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Your hand above is an opener for you, but for me it is not even marginal. Opening a weak NT if non-vulnerable is a bit more tempting than your options, but still not enough for mr.
#16
Posted 2017-February-06, 22:04
msjennifer, on 2017-February-06, 10:52, said:
Many are teaching the Rule of 20+2 requiring 20 HCP + length in the longest two suits and two quick tricks. The intent was to avoid the debacles like opening:
S-K H-Qx D-Qxxxx C-Kxxxx using the Rule of 20; but the Rule of 20 plus 2 says to pass your hand also.
#17
Posted 2017-February-07, 01:34
Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-06, 22:04, said:
S-K H-Qx D-Qxxxx C-Kxxxx using the Rule of 20; but the Rule of 20 plus 2 says to pass your hand also.
This rule of 20+2 seems fairly reasonable; it is harder to abuse but not impossible. The problem, of course, is people being so close to opening hands like your example hand that they would need a tiebreaker like a rule of whatever.
#18
Posted 2017-February-07, 10:36
Yeah, Rule of X is designed to be a coinflip decider, not the only evaluation method. I also remember the person I agreed to play Precision with 10-12 NTs who didn't open a flat 11 because "I don't open 10-loser hands". If that's the case, why did you agree to play 10-12?
#19
Posted 2017-February-07, 11:18
Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:55, said:
So let us start with some definitions here. I am going to give you a hand: ♠AKQxxxx ♥- ♦Kxx ♣Kxx. How many PTs do you evaluate this to be? How many losers? I get 8 PTs and 4 losers under all of the methods. Indeed I have chosen this hand specifically because it evaluates identically for LTC/MLTC and all forms of PT evaluation. Presumably your evaluation is different and that might help us to place the discussion into the correct context.
Your first example shows how PTs and LTs don't match, but in a way it is an example of my query. Playing Benji, and counting PTs the way I do, that would be 9 PTs, so I would open 2♣ rather than 2♦, as to open 2♦ shows that you have game in your own hand opposite a bust. But some players would say I should have opened 2♦ as I only had 3 losers.
Your second example raises a related query. Why do Kxx Kxx count as just 1 PT but 4 LTs?
#20
Posted 2017-February-07, 11:25
Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 11:24, said:
I have been encouraged to use the Rule of 22 rather than the Rule of 20, and the example hand seems to illustrate why it is a better rule (at least for me).