[whereagles]

Imps, all vuln.

System is 2/1 with the following gadgets:
1. Constructive raises 1♠-2♠: 3-card support 7-10 hcp. Long suit trials follow.
2. A semi-forcing 1NT.
3. 1♠ 3x = splinter with inv+ values.
4. 1♠ 3♠ = weak.

♠ AKJxx.....Qxx
♥ JTx.........x
♦ x............AJ9x
♣ KJxx.......Qxxxx

At table, me and pd produced this rather unconvincing and unsucessful auction:

Me pard
1♠...2♠ (constructive)
pass

Not so hot, as +650 is cold. I'm open to suggestions as to how this can be improved

[mike777]

Understand 1s=2s (7-10 hcp for me, 3s)=p

vul at imps you may wish to be very aggressive and make long suit game try in clubs or short suit in hearts. Could argue opener hand worth around 6.5-7 LTC.
Do not think anyone here did anything terrible.

[flytoox]

Opp may get two ruffs. Stopping at 2 is certainly not unreasonable.

[HeartA]

I would bid game with my pd. Qxx, x, AJ9x, Qxxxx is too good for a simple raise.
With one more trump, I would consider it as hand worth game forcing. The following would be the sequence, playing 2/1:

1S - 1N
2C - 3S
4S(pass?).

[fred]

flytoox, on Jan 26 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

Opp may get two ruffs. Stopping at 2 is certainly not unreasonable.

5C is a nice contract

I don't think either player did anything awful, but treating responder's hand as a 3-card limit raise also reasonable in my view. I would not make a game try with opener's hand after the actual single raise.

Keep in mind that no matter how good your methods and judgment are, some hands will always slip through the cracks. You shouldn't lose too much sleep over missing games and slams that are only playable because the hands fit perfectly. Catering your bidding to the possibility of partner have the "perfect hand" when there is no safety if he doesn't is a losing strategy.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[flytoox]

HeartA, on Jan 26 2005, 11:02 PM, said:

I would bid game with my pd. Qxx, x, AJ9x, Qxxxx is too good for a simple raise.
With one more trump, I would consider it as hand worth game forcing. The following would be the sequence, playing 2/1:

1S - 1N
2C - 3S
4S(pass?).

This is a good way to 4S. Can you find a way to 5C?

[Free]

1♠ OK
2♠ OK
the only thing I can see to continue is a long/help suit trial in ♣. However you're minimum and you have lots of J's, so I probably would also play 2♠...

Why didn't opps bid some ♥s?

[cherdano]

Isn't this the hand because of which you are playing mini-splinters? 3♥ would work fine.

[pbleighton]

Agree with HeartA - 9 hcp plus a singleton is too good for 2S IMO, though it is a soft 9 and 2S isn't that bad. This is really a style issue. Do you like playing marginal games bid on distribution? Some do, some don't.

Cherdano - do you splinter with only 3 trumps?

Peter

[mike777]

Easier for me to at least think of making a game try here since I know p will not bid 1nt then 3s with this hand type. As others have said depends on your style of what a minimum 1nt then 3s may look like. This falls in our 1s=2s style since opener may often have junky 5332 hand that others may pass.

[pclayton]

Vul, I can see making a game try with this 5 1/2 loser hand.

I can also see an upgrade to a limit raise; although this is a little dicey, since the hand is a little quacky. I think a constructive raise is a decent call.

Funny - any kind of game try you play will get you into game here: LSGT (♣'s) / SSGT (♦'s) / HSGT (♥'s).

[luis]

I'd have loved to have this hand as a problem without seeing the opening hand.
I bid 2c Game Forcing, because with the other alternatives I might lose a slam. I consider responder's hand a game forcing hand after the 1s opening. Because it has:

Three card support with an honor Qxx
A rufing value: singleton in hearts x
Honor in diamonds AJxx
A five card side suit headed by an honor Qxxxx

Even with the worst missfiting hands 4s should have a play and if opener has a nice hand it's easy to construct some slams with only some HCPs. Call me an optimist or a lunatic but being vulnerable I think that with this hand the plan is to see which is the best game for us, not see if we have game.
Go run a simulation 4s should be makeable in more than 60% of the hands were pd has a 1s opening and you get this hand.

[mila85]

Someone teached me a rule: 18 - (my loosers + partner's loosers)=level which you should make.
I need 7 loosers to open so responder's hand has at least invit values.
I don't play 2/1 so I don't know what the right bid is but I'm sure that there is a way how to show invit hand with 3card support...

[Gerben47]

I play that same system with my junior partner and I consider responder's hand too strong for the constructive raise. Fred's point about hands that fall through the cracks is very good, but I don't consider this hand to be in this category.

On the other hand I feel that it is too weak for 2♣ GF, and ♠ Qxx is no good for a minisplinter.
After elimination there is only one option left. Bid a forcing 1NT then support on the 3-level. The actual opening hand will accept this.

I don't see how to get to 5♣ though...

[Chamaco]

In my view, responder underbid, because he has extra in distribution.

Fitting hands are best evaluated in terms of losers, and a 8 losers hand (such as responder's) is worth an invitation, which will be obviously accepted by opener.

I would invite with 1NT forcing because I do not like to splinter with 3 card support, but I suppose this is not a crucial point (up to pship style).

So my chosen auction is:

1S:1NT* (forcing)
2C:3S
4S

but in light of "semi"-forcing 1NT, I have no objection to

1S:3H* (minisplinter)
4S

[inquiry]

For ZAR fan's lets evaluate responders hand...Qxx, x, AJ9x, Qxxxx

9 hcp
2 control points
1 point for honor in spades
13 distribution points

Total = 25 points....

But there is also this... zar says "You can calculate and add the points for a single additional trump even if you gave just the regular fit that your bid shows (no superfit), provided there is a difference of at least 2 between your trump length and your shortest suit. So if you have 4 trumps and a side singleton and you have raised your partner’s 4-card suit, you still can count 2 points (that’s 3-1); same with 3 trumps if you have raised your partner’s 5-card major – you count (3-1) = 2 points for the singleton. "

So with a two card difference between spade legnth (three) and heart length (1), you can add two points for the singleton heart... that brings the total to 27 ZAR points, one more needed to "ensure" game. So Luis force to game would be backed by ZAR, and at the very least a 2♠ bid is a HUGE underestimate of the value of this hand. Mini-splinter (using your method) or 2♣ game force for me... bidding 2♠ only would NEVER occur to me as an option.

Ben

[whereagles]

Thx all for the suggestions

I too think responder is a bit too good for a single raise. A 7,5 loser hand deserves at least a game try, if not game outright. Ok, probably not worth forcing to game given the sub-par hcp strenght.

The hand should have been bid, I believe, via the semi-forcing 1NT. The 1NT can be passed, but that's very rare (11-12 hcp, 5332, scattered honors - you probably won't make 4 in this case). So..

1♠ 1NT
2♣ 3♠
4♠ <-- maybe pass works well too, but vuln at imps and with a singleton, 4 is probably mandatory.

I wouldn't dismiss a direct 1♠-3♥ splinter raise, albeit responder has only 3 cards. If responder is optimistic and considers he has a game force, it could go..

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 3♠ <-- not 4♠ - that would be a picture bid.
3NT 4♠ <-- 3NT frivolous. Better than a straight 4♠, as responder could still have extras.

[Chamaco]

whereagles, on Jan 27 2005, 02:12 PM, said:

I too think responder is a bit too good for a single raise. A 7,5 loser hand deserves at least a game try, if not game outright. Ok, probably not worth forcing to game given the sub-par hcp strenght.

â™  Qxx = 2.5+ losers (NOT only 2, but worse than 2.5 losers)
♥ x = 1 losers
♦ AJ9x = 2- losers (less than 2, closer to 1.5/1.75 because of lower tenaces)
♣ Qxxxx = 2.5+ losers (NOT only 2, but worse than 2.5 losers)

TOTAL = about 8 losers (not 7.5 ) and, IMO invitational only strength
(BTW, I am among those who do not like to bid a 2/1 with a Qxxxx suit, unless I have really no alternative... So, if treating the hand as genuine GF, I'd prefer a GF splinter, lying on a 4th trump rather than about a source of tricks in clubs)

I am posting this only to try to emphasize that the simplified way of counting losers (e.g. Qxx = 2 losers lost like Axx or Kxx), which seems to have become popular (because its simplicity) has problems.

I believe that teaching right away, also to non - experts, the "advanced" LTC count (accounting for finesses percentage) does not necessarily scare students: actually, in most italian books on bidding which deeal with LTC (e.g. most of Belladonna and Garozzo's books) do start right away with the table of losers with different holdings.

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Jan 27 2005, 10:30 AM, said:

I am posting this only to try to emphasize that the simplified way of counting losers (e.g. Qxx = 2 losers lost like Axx or Kxx), which seems to have become popular (because its simplicity) has problems.

You treat Qxx in a suit your partner opened promising five card or longer suit and opening values as 2.5 losers? Really. If a side suit, ok I would agree, but in his primary suit? Curious.

Romex people might count cover cards...

Ben

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Jan 27 2005, 02:43 PM, said:

You treat Qxx in a suit your partner opened promising five card or longer suit and opening values as 2.5 losers? Really. If a side suit, ok I would agree, but in his primary suit? Curious.

Romex people might count cover cards...

Ben

I sure use adjustments, ben

Usually, Qxx in one suit and another suit cancel out reevaluation and deevaluation (because often one Qxx is fitting and the other is misfitting).
In the given hand I have values in 3 suits and it is likely LTC will underestimate some of the holding and overestimate the misfitting one, but until the bidding has progressed showing where pard's side values are, I tend to cancel out these things, because while I already know ♠Qxx is fitting, I expect some of the other values to be misfitting and account for this possibility.


Moreover: 2.5 is already an OVERESTIMATION (treated as Kxx), so treating Qxx in pard's suit as 2.5 is already a reevaluation in some way.

Unless I have extremely good redeeming values in other suits (so I might SUPER-REEVALUATE to less than 2.5 losers) OR pard has shown a 6 bagger there, I won't treat it as a 2-loser hlding.

I personally would apply your reasoning to a Kxx holding but not Qxx unless I have a 4th trump.

At least that's what I try to do !