[SriNT]

Bit a math question, I guess, but on average, how many losers can you expect your pd's 15-7 NT cover? your pd's 18-9 nt hand, and 20-21 hand?

[MattieShoe]

Doesn't it depend on the shape of your hand? Opposite 7510 probably gets a wildly different answer than opposite 4333...

[SriNT]

Sure, some days pd may have AKQ against your void, other days xxx. Hence I was wondering what the average would be.

[Mbodell]

A rough rule of thumb for hands is every ~3 points removes a loser and an opening hand has 7 losers. So 12-14 = 7 losers, 15-17 = 6 losers, 18-20 = 5 losers, 21-24 = 4 losers. Also 6-9 = 9 losers, 10-12 = 8 losers. Obviously, distribution is very important and a distributional hand will have far fewer losers. A very flat hand will have more losers. I'd expect a 15-17 nt hand to have 6 losers most often, but 7 much more often than 5. So, say 6 1/3 losers on average.

[aguahombre]

And on another string, posters wanted to upgrade ATX AX ATXXX AXX above the opening 15-17 NT range. 8 loser hand. LTC is not really intended to be used as an opening bid guide.

[SriNT]

I meant more as covering the other hands losers. i.e if my pd opens a 15-7 nt, shows a 18-9 nt, or 20-21 nt, how many of my losers can i expect pd to cover. Going by the ~ 3 hcp removes a loser, a 15-7 can at max. in general removed 4-5 losers, a 18-9 cover about 5-6 losers, and 20-21 remove about 6-7 losers?
So it is probably reasonable to think of slam with a 6 loser hand against a 15-7 NT, 7 loser hand against a 18-9 nt, 8 loser hand against a 20-21 nt? ofcourse depending on whether the #'s are closer to the lower or upper range. and going by this general rule, one can pretty much forget thinking of a slam if they have a 7 loser hand against 15-7 nt, 8 loser hand against 18-9 nt, and 9 loser hand against 20-21 nt?

[maggieb]

The answer to your question must exist, but as MattieShoe points out, it is not particularly useful on any particular hand. To take an extreme example:

JT9xxxxxxx x x x

vs

AKx Axx x AQJxxx

You have 5 losers to cover in either case, but of course it is much easier to cover the losers in the second hand than the first hand. The first hand's losers can only be covered by extremely specific cards, whereas there are many ways to cover the five losers in the second hand. That is why this method of hand evaluation is not effective if used blindly.

[MattieShoe]

If you've already got partner's point count and we're ignoring distributional considerations, is there anything wrong with using points rather than LTC? 25/29/33/37 for 3/2/1/0 losers right?

[SriNT]

No nothing wrong. Just that would be quite rigid. So if pd opens a 15-7 nt, and u have 15 points, this is a max of 32, and hence not slam going, but we all would make some try. So wondered how the equation comes into play with LTC. Maybe LTC is even more rigid. i.e on general forget distribution etc. doesnt make sense to even try for slam over a 15-7 nt with 16 hcp, cos you "rate" to have approximately 1.7 losers, so may only work 30% of the time. Well ofcourse that is why we have bidding systems, conventions, RKC etc to stop below the 6 level. This was just a curious thought/exercise. The thread can end.

[mike777]

SriNT, on Oct 8 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

Bit a math question, I guess, but on average, how many losers can you expect your pd's 15-7 NT cover? your pd's 18-9 nt hand, and 20-21 hand?

cover:


5
6
7
on average


never mind extreme hands.....