[1eyedjack]

Orla, on Sep 13 2010, 03:24 PM, said:

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

I do see this quite a bit. Others have addressed it already in this thread, but to put it in slightly different words:

The word "Losers" when used in applying the hand evaluation method "losing trick count" originally published by Harrison-Gray is an artificial term used to describe a calculated number, and is not to be confused with the real "worst case scenario" definition of "losers", which would be net difference of 13 less your playing tricks. In an extreme case it could arise that your Harrison-Gray LTC is the same as your worst case scenario, when all of your suits are semisolid or stuffed with intermediates, and then coincidentally it might indicate a strong opener.

On this hand you could well sustain 5 or even 6 losers in the play opposite an ill-fitting partner, without even sustaining adverse ruffs.

LTC should only be applied when a trump fit has been established, and then only as a guide to determine the contract level in conjunction with a similar artificial calculation adopted by partner in respect of his hand. I suggest that you do not consider LTC when determining the opening bid. A possible exception being that if your LTC is more than 7 and you do not have a hand suitable for preempt then you might consider passing in preference to opening at the 1-level, if your partner would normally expect a 7 LTC hand when raising. This might be disapplied in 3rd seat or playing Drury, or if your partnership style is to open light (but then partner's expectations would be adjusted anyway). Also playing a weak 1N opener you may well decide to open 1N on an 8 LTC hand if the points indicate, but partner should not then assume 7.

[Oof Arted]

Codo, on Sep 13 2010, 01:47 AM, said:

Thinking about 2 ♣ is an overbid.
If you play the French style, or Acol twos, you had something to think about, but not in a standard system.

by the definitions in UK this does not meet the criteria for an Acol 2♠ opener

[blackshoe]

SA: 1♠
2/1: 1♠
K/S: 1♠
Acol: 1♠
After all these, I'm planning to JS to 3♣

Precision: 1♣, followed by 1♠ (NF if responder bids 1♦, but he might well have enough to force to game.

Romex: 1[NT] followed by 3♠ (F). Partner will play me for 4 losers, but that's all right.

[Free]

1♠ is obvious, 2♣ is serious lol to me.

[Cyberyeti]

Oof Arted, on Sep 13 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

Codo, on Sep 13 2010, 01:47 AM, said:

Thinking about 2 ♣ is an overbid.
If you play the French style, or Acol twos, you had something to think about, but not in a standard system.

by the definitions in UK this does not meet the criteria for an Acol 2♠ opener

Yes it does, comfortably.

It has at least 16 points and satisfies the rule of 25, so that's 2 of the criteria met, it hasn't got 8 clear cut tricks, but the rule is any of the above not all of them.

[VixTD]

[quote name='Cyberyeti' date='Sep 14 2010, 03:56 AM']by the definitions in UK this does not meet the criteria for an Acol 2[sp] opener

[/QUOTE]
Yes it does, comfortably.

It has at least 16 points and satisfies the rule of 25, so that's 2 of the criteria met, it hasn't got 8 clear cut tricks, but the rule is any of the above not all of them.[/QUOTE]

I think you are confusing what "Oof" meant by "criteria" for an Acol 2 with the minimum acceptable legal requirement for an artificial strong opening bid in the EBU.

When the EBU introduced a minimum requirement for opening one of a suit as "rule of 19", I came across many players who assumed this somehow defined an opening bid, and used it as a guideline to decide which hands to open. Then the EBU changed it to rule of 18....

I don't know where or even whether the criteria for an Acol 2 are officially defined; I think of it as something like "a powerful hand that expects to take at least eight tricks with the main suit as trumps, one that's just short of a game-force, and has some defensive potential, maybe two or more tricks".

I think we're all agreed this hand doesn't measure up to that.

[655321]

VixTD, on Sep 14 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

I don't know where or even whether the criteria for an Acol 2 are officially defined; I think of it as something like "a powerful hand that expects to take at least eight tricks with the main suit as trumps, one that's just short of a game-force, and has some defensive potential, maybe two or more tricks".

I think we're all agreed this hand doesn't measure up to that.

?

Everyone agrees that the hand is not worth a game force, but possibly you and old york are the only two people who agree that it is not even worth an Acol two, so not sure where "we're all" comes from.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on Sep 14 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

I think you are confusing what "Oof" meant by "criteria" for an Acol 2 with the minimum acceptable legal requirement for an artificial strong opening bid in the EBU.

When the EBU introduced a minimum requirement for opening one of a suit as "rule of 19", I came across many players who assumed this somehow defined an opening bid, and used it as a guideline to decide which hands to open. Then the EBU changed it to rule of 18....

I don't know where or even whether the criteria for an Acol 2 are officially defined; I think of it as something like "a powerful hand that expects to take at least eight tricks with the main suit as trumps, one that's just short of a game-force, and has some defensive potential, maybe two or more tricks".

I think we're all agreed this hand doesn't measure up to that.

Not at all.

On the odd occasions I play acol 2s I would open this one like a shot.

My reasoning would be as follows:

I have one club trick and one heart trick, give partner 2 spades and a 3-2 break (is this most likely ? I think so), I have 6 spade tricks so that's 8. Playing tricks are not clear cut tricks.

Partner and I do more or less apply the rule of 19 to opening bids also, only not opening those that we consider aren't worth their full count.

[gwnn]

I think I've heard of non-forcing strong twos someplace? if 2S was non-forcing I would be reluctant to bid it since this is so close to a Standard American 2C opening.

[VixTD]

655321, on Sep 14 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

Everyone agrees that the hand is not worth a game force, but possibly you and old york are the only two people who agree that it is not even worth an Acol two, so not sure where "we're all" comes from.

Yes, you're quite right, I withdraw my comment.

I wouldn't open it an Acol 2, but I wouldn't criticize anyone who did.

[bucky]

Orla, on Sep 13 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

Loser count is more meaningful if you can be assured of fit. For example, if partner has red suits instead, you may have more losers in spades and clubs. That being said, this is not a terrible 2♣ opener, although I still prefer 1♠.

[bftboy]

There still a few around who show the # of controls they have over a 2♣ opener. If playing that, then open 2♣. If I had 7♠, I think I'd open 2♣ regardless.

[nige1]

Orla, on Sep 12 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

Holding this hand, as dealer and playing 5-card majors, what would you open?
Please give your reasons.

---

Partners have brain-washed me into opening 1♠ but there is a good argument for 2♣. In the UK, it is legal to open 2♣ with this. The LTC is a simple effective hand-evaluation method. Who will laugh last when LHO leads to 1♠ and partner puts down something like
♠ J ♥ xxxx ♦ Jxxxx ♣ Jxx

[jdonn]

Coming late to this, of course this is a 1♠ opening. I'm a bit surprised at the suggestions of 2♣ if a small club was the jack, it doesn't seem far off to me then but I would still expect 1♠ to be an obvious and clearly majority bid.

[murray884]

The hand has 3/4 losers. I would open 2C

[murray884]

When it comes to opening 2C, I count my losers and if they are 1 more than game, I will open 2C

[blackshoe]

I voted for 1♠, but I do recall reading somewhere the suggestion that a hand like this, with more quick tricks than losers (this hand has 5 quick tricks and 3 losers) should open 2♣, at least in SA or 2/1.

[P_Marlowe]

Orla, on Sep 13 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

Hi,

#1 The LTC was developed to evaluate hands in the presence of a fit.
#2 Using the LTC to evaluate the playing strength of a hand in absence of a fit,
works also reasonably well, although one needs to be cautious, the LTC
overstimates shape.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

It's not just about how good the hand is. With this combination of suits you would much rather have the bidding go

1♠ 1NT 3♣

than

2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦/♥ ?

Also it's easy to think of these spades as solid, but they are not. If partner has a void they never run, if he has a singelton they run less than 40% of the time, and even if he has a small doubleton they only run about 2/3 of the time.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

It's not just about how good the hand is. With this combination of suits you would much rather have the bidding go

1♠ 1NT 3♣

than

2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦/♥ ?

Also it's easy to think of these spades as solid, but they are not. If partner has a void they never run, if he has a singelton they run less than 40% of the time, and even if he has a small doubleton they only run about 2/3 of the time.

Amen! It is really remarkable how much the mere addition of the T♠ instead of an x improves this holding. Now your suit can run opposite partner's void albeit still against the odds plus you move to over 50% if pard has a small singleton.