[dcohio]

Scoring: MP

(P)-1♠-(P)-???

---

Whats your bid assuming:

1) SAYC

2) Basic 2/1 no bergen

3) 2/1 w/bergen

[655321]

2♠.

It might be just me, but I don't find this ugly 3343 to be an 'Interesting Bridge Hand'

[jjbrr]

2♠

[aguahombre]

name a few more styles. Still 2S

[jdonn]

If the diamonds were Qxxx instead I wouldn't bid 2♠ any more (sans constructive raises) because it would seem too weird, but I would be far from shocked to find out it's the highest spade contract we could make.

[Jlall]

655321, on Apr 15 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

2♠.

It might be just me, but I don't find this ugly 3343 to be an 'Interesting Bridge Hand'

Wow, even 655321 will not overbid!

I think almost all 4333 10s should bid 2S, this is one of the worst possible ones so...

[dcohio]

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy... pd and I missed placing tonight and he thought I should have pushed this board. 4S rolled home.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Apr 16 2010, 03:59 AM, said:

I think almost all 4333 10s should bid 2S, this is one of the worst possible ones so...

I think the opposite, find this one to be on the top of 4333 because all of our honnors are working, having 2 tens doesn't make it worse. Am I wrong?

[Jlall]

Fluffy, on Apr 16 2010, 03:55 AM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 16 2010, 03:59 AM, said:

I think almost all 4333 10s should bid 2S, this is one of the worst possible ones so...

I think the opposite, find this one to be on the top of 4333 because all of our honnors are working, having 2 tens doesn't make it worse. Am I wrong?

Having all of your honors in trumps is very bad not good.

I don't know why you think a stray jack is "working", I mean it's better than a Jxx by a little bit but it's still a jack with no supporting honors.

Likewise the tens in random suits are not that good. A JT combination would be much more valuable than J T T. Again if all of our honors were not AKQ tight then our tens might be working with other honors making them much better.

Compare this hand to AJT xxx KQTx xxx for a hand that actually has all working honors + 2 useful tens (same A K Q J T T). That hand is infinitely better. Even something like Qxx KJT ATxx xxx would be much better. Basically any hand with an A K Q J T T would be much better than this one.

[Fluffy]

I still disagree a bit, having no wasted honnors in partner's shortness must be better than having a queen or K10x. Even better than KQ10x althou I rather had a strong 4 card suit than this overload of trumps that's for sure.

But comparing this to a hand with scattered values everywhere, even with some H10 combos, I think this rates to be better. And I am accepting any game try partner makes (to 3NT unless he bids 3♦).

[hanp]

I think it is time for a simulation. Any bets?

[Fluffy]

hanp, on Apr 16 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

I think it is time for a simulation. Any bets?

I though about proposing one, but AKQ is awful for double dummy purposes.

[pooltuna]

dcohio, on Apr 15 2010, 10:34 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(P)-1♠-(P)-???

---

Whats your bid assuming:

1) SAYC

2) Basic 2/1 no bergen

3) 2/1 w/bergen

a constructive 2♠ call using modified SAYC

EDIT: modified for GWNN

[gwnn]

AKQ tight in trumps is awful for all purposes ))

pooltuna what are you smoking, sayc does not have constructive raises.

[Phil]

I'm not sure what Bergen has to do with it, although when I'm playing Bergen I will usually call a 4-trump-3-3-3 a 3 card raise.

In 2/1, the single raise has a tighter range, and we are at the top, which is fine although I'd make the same call in SAYC.

I wouldn't be surprised in we can make a lot of NT with a hand like this opposite some very boring 13's.

[Siegmund]

Flat 9-loser hand, 2♠ looks pretty obvious to me.

Quick and dirty simulation for whoever asked for it: your hand as given, partner's hand 5+ spades and 11-16 HCP, 9.07 tricks expected, 34% chance of making game in spades. Double-dummy a clear pass, though if you believe that opening leader blows half a trick on average, you can make a case for bidding more, I guess.


If I weren't so lazy I'd write something more detailed to identify which opening hands would make a game try.

[Phil]

Siegmund, on Apr 16 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

Flat 9-loser hand, 2♠ looks pretty obvious to me.

Quick and dirty simulation for whoever asked for it: your hand as given, partner's hand 5+ spades and 11-16 HCP, 9.07 tricks expected, 34% chance of making game in spades. Double-dummy a clear pass, though if you believe that opening leader blows half a trick on average, you can make a case for bidding more, I guess.


If I weren't so lazy I'd write something more detailed to identify which opening hands would make a game try.

What is the expected number of tricks in NT?

[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on Apr 16 2010, 09:27 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Apr 16 2010, 03:55 AM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 16 2010, 03:59 AM, said:

I think almost all 4333 10s should bid 2S, this is one of the worst possible ones so...

I think the opposite, find this one to be on the top of 4333 because all of our honnors are working, having 2 tens doesn't make it worse. Am I wrong?

Having all of your honors in trumps is very bad not good.

I don't know why you think a stray jack is "working", I mean it's better than a Jxx by a little bit but it's still a jack with no supporting honors.

Likewise the tens in random suits are not that good. A JT combination would be much more valuable than J T T. Again if all of our honors were not AKQ tight then our tens might be working with other honors making them much better.

Compare this hand to AJT xxx KQTx xxx for a hand that actually has all working honors + 2 useful tens (same A K Q J T T). That hand is infinitely better. Even something like Qxx KJT ATxx xxx would be much better. Basically any hand with an A K Q J T T would be much better than this one.

I don't get the point. Averagely speaking, AKQ in trumps work most of times when partner holds 5 spades. They work OK when partner holds 6 spades, Q may not be important about slightly more than 50% of times. However, if you don't hold AKQ in trumps, your side suit honor may suffer a big loss if partner holds singleton or void and has a side suit wide open. When partner holds 2, your Q may or may not help him to pitch a loser. When partner holds 3 or more small cards, you are lucky. From partner's point of view, if he holds 5 baby trumps, he may easily downgrade his hand facing a three card raise, which make your AKQ of trumps more valuable. So I really don't get the point why AKQ tight is surely bad facing a 5 card or more 1S opener.

[Jlall]

AKQ gives your honors no chance to finesse for one. Imagine if partner has JT9xx, Axx is often one loser, AKQ is no losers, you haven't gained much from your AKQ and you've wasted your partners spades. In general having AKQJ of one suit is very bad, especially a long suit, something is almost always wasted.

Even AKx vs Jxxxx is sometimes zero losers anyways. You have no option of something like that happening either.

Another thing is that if you happen to be able to ruff something at some point (say partner is 5422), AKQ is no longer very good, you'd much rather have a small trump.

Another thing is that all of your entries are in trumps, this is not good. On some hands where you can just pull trumps, cross to dummy, and set up your side suits you might have to risk ruffs since you cannot pull all of your trumps. On some hands where you might have been able to set up your long diamond and then cash it, you cannot because you have entry problems. AKQ of trumps does not allow fluid communication. It doesn't allow you to test trumps a lot of times. Blah blah.

AKQ of trumps does not allow you to promote anything. "Good" honors allow you to do so.

AKQ is bad because it doesn't have other honors working together. Notice how the Ts and J are stranded. A good hand has minor honors working together.

Not to mention that surely it is obvious that it's nice to have honors in your longer suits. AKQ tight in general is bad, just because it's in trumps does not mean that AKQ tight is still a bad holding.

And as you said, if partner ever has six trumps, your AKQ is obviously bad now.

TBH I am surprised this is a controversial view at all, I consider this basic bridge hand evaluation. To say that this is one of the best 4333 10 counts is amazingly lol.

I would rather have Axx QTx JT8x K8x and it's not even close (and it's not like this is some awesome cherry picked 10 count, it is a below average hand given a 4333 with A K Q J T T). I would easily bet on a simulation would back me up.

[dcohio]

My whole problem with the hand is that it was only worth 3 tricks. There's little chance of getting the J♦ to cash or either of the 10s. Granted, it's a guaranteed 3 tricks, but with no ruffing value and no shape, I thought 2♠ was best. I'm glad the sim and most of you back me up on this. My evaluations are getting better by the day from reading these boards