[Phil]

Swiss matches

1. R/W

Q9xx QJTxx JTxx void

(3♣ - 3♠ - (5♣) -?

2. R/W

KQTxx Q9 T7x KT9

1♥ - 1♠
2♣ - ?

[pooltuna]

1) 5♠
2) 2♥

[semeai]

1. 5♠

2. 2♦ unless it's game forcing, in which case I tank, which ends up making my best solution to bid 2♦ anyway.

[whereagles]

5♠/2♦, not caring much whether if F1 or GF.

[Phil]

1. Partner held AJTxxx, xx, Kx, KJx. 5♣ is -1, 5♠ got cracked and went for 500. Perhaps if partner wanted our input, they might double 5♣?

2. 2♦ (the choice at the table) supercharges the auction. Partner will rebid 3♣. Does he have a 17 count 5-5, or an 11 count? Have fun guessing. This is a nasty problem, and those that do not play this 4SF auction as a GF need to get on firm ground on continuations. If you do play 4S GF, then you are left with a lot of bad choices, including 2♥ (big underbid), 2N (no stop and slow tricks), 3♣ and 3♥ (these speak for themselves).

This is a chamber of horrors hand I think.

[whereagles]

Chamber of horrors? Well, that certainly is an exaggeration.

In fact, it's very easy to bid the hand if you're not playing 4SF. Then you're sort of "endplayed" into bidding 2NT, after which pard will bid 3♠ if he accepts the invite and has 3 spades. Heck, you might bid 2NT even if you're playing 4SF, though this hand is more or less what the invention of 4SF was meant for.

[VM1973]

5♠ as your hand has few losers and a guaranteed fit with partner. The duplication is hearts and clubs is unfortunate, but mostly your partner's fault. He shouldn't have bid 3 over 3 with a simple 7-loser hand. He's a king light for his bid.

2♦ GF as your hand has 7 losers when you upgrade the ♥Q since it's in your partner's suit. Over 3♣ I don't know what to do. A simple preference to hearts, I suppose.

[semeai]

Phil, on 2011-July-22, 10:07, said:

2. 2♦ (the choice at the table) supercharges the auction. Partner will rebid 3♣. Does he have a 17 count 5-5, or an 11 count? Have fun guessing. This is a nasty problem, and those that do not play this 4SF auction as a GF need to get on firm ground on continuations. If you do play 4S GF, then you are left with a lot of bad choices, including 2♥ (big underbid), 2N (no stop and slow tricks), 3♣ and 3♥ (these speak for themselves).

This is a chamber of horrors hand I think.

I'm not passing, if that's what you're suggesting. I'll just continue as though I really do have that queen extra and bid 3♦.

VM1973, on 2011-July-22, 14:38, said:

2♦ GF as your hand has 7 losers when you upgrade the ♥Q since it's in your partner's suit. Over 3♣ I don't know what to do. A simple preference to hearts, I suppose.

3♥ after 2♦ 4th suit forcing would be the way to show a game forcing heart raise.

[wank]

Phil, on 2011-July-22, 10:07, said:

1. Partner held AJTxxx, xx, Kx, KJx. 5♣ is -1, 5♠ got cracked and went for 500. Perhaps if partner wanted our input, they might double 5♣?

that's a 5 star resulting comment. what's partner supposed to do when 5c comes round to him and he's got a normal hand with a few clubs? he's going to think 'partner's got short clubs and didn't act. it's obviously a misfit'. even if he's an insane optimist he's not going to make a take-out orientated double with his presumed club length and relative lack of red cards.

ajtxxx kxx a xxx is an obvious pass when 5S is a very likely make and 5C may be difficult/impossible to defeat. see how partner feels about your leaving him the decision when it's a double game swing out. add the king of spades and i still can't see partner acting and now they need a heart ruff to stop slam. -1430 scoring up with -400 doesn't make happy teamies.

[Phil]

VM1973, on 2011-July-22, 14:38, said:

He shouldn't have bid 3 over 3 with a simple 7-loser hand. He's a king light for his bid..

Too true. I should have Qxxxxx x x Qxxxx when I overcall 3♠ instead of the actual hand.

[Phil]

semeai, on 2011-July-22, 15:11, said:

I'm not passing, if that's what you're suggesting.

No, I would never consider pass here. That's why it wasn't mentioned.

[VM1973]

Phil, on 2011-July-22, 23:34, said:

Too true. I should have Qxxxxx x x Qxxxx when I overcall 3♠ instead of the actual hand.

First of all, the hand you have posted is 7-8 losers depending on the method of LTC you use.

Spades: 2.5 losers
Hearts: 1
Diamonds: 1
Clubs: 3 losers

Additionally, I don't see how partner could have that hand in this auction considering:

A) Opener should have 7 clubs, the hypothetical hand contains 5 (that makes 12) and RHO raised.
B) The hypothetical hand contains the ♠Q when it is known to be in our hand.

I might have had more sympathy for the overcall had the ♣K been the ♥K instead. Of course then you're less likely to get cracked and less likely to go for -500 if you do... not to mention that 5♣ might very well be making with that modification to the hand.

Sorry that I don't think a simple 11-count (no, I'm not counting the ♣J) is enough to bid 3-3 when you're vulnerable, particularly when you are not especially shapely.

[VM1973]

semeai, on 2011-July-22, 15:11, said:

3♥ after 2♦ 4th suit forcing would be the way to show a game forcing heart raise.

I disagree. All you have really shown is an opening hand with 5♠ and no diamond stop.

[Phil]

wank, on 2011-July-22, 16:19, said:

that's a 5 star resulting comment. what's partner supposed to do when 5c comes round to him and he's got a normal hand with a few clubs?

Pass? We've discussed matters like this a lot on the forums. Its essentially unplayable for a reopening double here to be "I got clubs, please pass with a club void and four spades".

A double is much better played to show a hand closer to AJTxx, Kx, AKxx, xx (or even a skosh better). Most of the time, partner will pass with a semi balanced hand and we'll get a profit out of 5♣. But occasionally, partner will have a weak distributional hand and defending 5♣ isn't attractive.

Quote

He's going to think 'partner's got short clubs and didn't act. it's obviously a misfit'. even if he's an insane optimist he's not going to make a take-out orientated double with his presumed club length and relative lack of red cards.

Doubles at the 5 level in this context are not 'takeout' nor 'penalty'. They are 'do something intelligent'. The double shows extras.

Quote

Ajtxxx kxx a xxx is an obvious pass when 5S is a very likely make and 5C may be difficult/impossible to defeat. see how partner feels about your leaving him the decision when it's a double game swing out. add the king of spades and i still can't see partner acting and now they need a heart ruff to stop slam. -1430 scoring up with -400 doesn't make happy teamies.

Well if your opponents can find slam on these cards more power to them. I think AJTxxx Kxx A xxx is a very compelling example although if you reverse the red suits then the 5 level isn't so great on the bidding. And who is to say that partner doesn't have a little in clubs? Switch a red suit honor to clubs and now I want to defend, not bid. Maybe I won't defend it doubled (which is what happened at the other table by the way) but we aren't giving up 500 against a small plus.

Anyway, I've done what I condemn others for - post a hand and then act like I know everything about what's right. Frankly, bidding 5♠ could be very right with the hand posted, although I strongly disagree with others ideas about what a double by the 3♠ bidder means.

[Phil]

VM1973, on 2011-July-23, 10:18, said:

First of all, the hand you have posted is 7-8 losers depending on the method of LTC you use.

Spades: 2.5 losers
Hearts: 1
Diamonds: 1
Clubs: 3 losers

Additionally, I don't see how partner could have that hand in this auction considering:

A) Opener should have 7 clubs, the hypothetical hand contains 5 (that makes 12) and RHO raised.
B) The hypothetical hand contains the ♠Q when it is known to be in our hand.

I might have had more sympathy for the overcall had the ♣K been the ♥K instead. Of course then you're less likely to get cracked and less likely to go for -500 if you do... not to mention that 5♣ might very well be making with that modification to the hand.

Sorry that I don't think a simple 11-count (no, I'm not counting the ♣J) is enough to bid 3-3 when you're vulnerable, particularly when you are not especially shapely.

Your statement was (in essence), "overcalling 3 over 3 with a 7 loser hand is wrong" and you lay the blame on that call. Obviously a 6115 hand is impossible when the opponents preempt and raise in clubs.

I do not count losers, and you would be hard pressed to find a top player that does it on a regular basis. Nevertheless, I would disagree that KJx has two losers in the suit with a preempt in on my right.

Every method of LTC that I have seen claims one loser for each missing A, K or Q in a suit. Are there others?

[Zelandakh]

Modern LTC counts 1/2 loser for ace and 1 1/2 losers for a queen, plus various other adjustments. This makes it essentially a variation of the many popular 1-2-3 methods around, but with differing effective values for distribution.

[awm]

I think 5♠ is pretty normal on the first hand. The actual result is unfortunate, but it is easy to imagine partner having a hand with similar values and nothing much in clubs such that 5♠ is quite good (i.e. ♠AKxxxx ♥Kx ♦Kx ♣xxx is only a little "better" than the actual hand; ♠AJTxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣Qxx is maybe worse than the actual hand). There are also times that 5♣ might make, or that both contracts are failing but opponents have trouble finding a double, and I don't think most of these hands qualify for partner to reopen at the five-level.

On the second hand it seems pretty easy to bid 2♥ for me. It's an aceless ten-count with no obvious fit -- game is pretty unlikely and any invite is a distortion anyway. What's wrong with having a maximum preference for once?

[VM1973]

Phil, on 2011-July-23, 12:01, said:

Your statement was (in essence), "overcalling 3 over 3 with a 7 loser hand is wrong" and you lay the blame on that call. Obviously a 6115 hand is impossible when the opponents preempt and raise in clubs.

I do not count losers, and you would be hard pressed to find a top player that does it on a regular basis. Nevertheless, I would disagree that KJx has two losers in the suit with a preempt in on my right.

Every method of LTC that I have seen claims one loser for each missing A, K or Q in a suit. Are there others?

Wikipedia has the answers to your questions:

http://en.wikipedia....unt#Refinements

Edit: Furthermore, I don't see how Kxx is of any offensive value in your hand. With the preempter known to have 7, and you have 3, that's 10. So if partner has a stiff for sure your king is wasted. And if partner has xx then the preempter's partner will have a stiff so it will go ♣A, and club ruffed.