[VixTD]

neilkaz, on 2014-February-26, 09:48, said:

Before I vote, I need to ask what 3♠ means to you here and if it is a game try, how does it differ from 3♣?

It's not a game try to me, but presumably it is to some.

[neilkaz]

VixTD, on 2014-February-26, 10:00, said:

It's not a game try to me, but presumably it is to some.

OK then I bid 3♣. I don't think this is good enough to blast to game.

[VixTD]

MrAce, on 2014-February-26, 09:18, said:

Yes, of course. Not only bid game but also make a descriptive bid incase pd is upto more than just game. N has the maximum for his previous 2♠ bid.

I argued that North should accept a game-try from South, so I don't disagree with you, but how do you judge North as "maximum for his previous 2♠ bid"? In terms of high card points he's pretty close to minimum. He has about six losers (count Qxx as 1.5 2.5, subtract 0.5 for the good controls), he's also got a singleton in the suit where partner is looking for help, so I'd want to be in game, but the point-counters might sign off in 3♠.

[Zelandakh]

Point counters also count points for distribution. A single raise is traditionally up to 16. This hand has 12 and adding 3 for a singleton brings it to 15. Add to that the good suit textures and hard values (AKT8x, KTxx) and the fact that the singleton is working (opposite partner's club losers) and accepting a 3♣ HSGT is clear. I would argue it the other way - bean counters will always accept with this regardless of which invite they get whereas a HSGT in diamonds might persuade another player not to accept.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-27, 07:57, said:

Point counters also count points for distribution. A single raise is traditionally up to 16. This hand has 12 and adding 3 for a singleton brings it to 15. Add to that the good suit textures and hard values (AKT8x, KTxx) and the fact that the singleton is working (opposite partner's club losers) and accepting a 3♣ HSGT is clear. I would argue it the other way - bean counters will always accept with this regardless of which invite they get whereas a HSGT in diamonds might persuade another player not to accept.

I agree, I don't think anyone who's progressed beyond beginners' classes would look at this and think "what a miserable twelve-count", but I'm trying to pin down how people evaluate it (and the South hand). I'm trying to start a discussion on our county website to help our teams think about how they should have bid this game.

[WellSpyder]

VixTD, on 2014-February-27, 08:25, said:

I agree, I don't think anyone who's progressed beyond beginners' classes would look at this and think "what a miserable twelve-count", but I'm trying to pin down how people evaluate it (and the South hand). I'm trying to start a discussion on our county website to help our teams think about how they should have bid this game.

I would discuss a simple losing trick count. South has 7 losers compared with an expectation of 9 for his first bid, so bidding on seems 100% clear. In fact the LTC suggests jumping immediately to 4, but I agree with those who suggest this is too much and that a game try is more appropriate.

North has 6 losers rather than a clear expectation of 7 for a single raise, and 4-card trump support where he might well have had only 3. It is hard to see what not to like about this hand when asked by partner whether or not you want to be in game.

[MrAce]

VixTD, on 2014-February-27, 07:43, said:

I argued that North should accept a game-try from South, so I don't disagree with you, but how do you judge North as "maximum for his previous 2♠ bid"? In terms of high card points he's pretty close to minimum. He has about six losers (count Qxx as 1.5, subtract 0.5 for the good controls), he's also got a singleton in the suit where partner is looking for help, so I'd want to be in game, but the point-counters might sign off in 3♠.

You started talking about losers and controls then u lost me. Anyway... This hand obviously much different than weak NT hand. 4 card fit, a side 5 card + a stiff and ***** loads of spot cards, no wasted hcp in the stiff. You add another Q this will be a clear 3♠ bid (for some any 4531 11-14 is 3♠ and 2♠ is weak NT hand , but i am not one of them) In this context N hand is definitely the max for 2♠, but if you are conservative then lets at least agree that it is not minimum.

[Zelandakh]

WellSpyder, on 2014-February-27, 08:51, said:

I would discuss a simple losing trick count.

I have pointed it out a number of times already but there is no difference between the LTC/MLTC and any other bean counting scheme. In fact my belief is that a well-adjusted hcp scheme is more accurate than MLTC, since the latter overvalues shortages in many situations and has less flexibility than hcp adjustments. Bean counting is surprisingly effective most of the time when you get sophisticated about it!

[ggwhiz]

A 3♣ trial bid seems like the way to go in your discussion.

After that (discussed in my partnership) 3♥ would be either good hearts without club help, still interested or good hearts with club help catering to a possible slam try. If south tries to sign off in 3♠ you show that you had both by raising to game. And if north rejects the game try south can raise to say he was really looking for help towards slam.

That could lose the audience in a discussion so there is nothing wrong with pointing out that north has club help (with a bonus 4th trump) and is worth game period and the above might be a footnote if the discussion evolves enough.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2014-February-24, 12:13, said:

Teams-of-eight, scored as the sum of the IMPs from two teams-of-four.
You're playing Acol, 12-14 NT, four-card majors. What do you bid now?

---

IMO 3♣ = 10, 4♠ = 9, 3♠ = 8, Pass = 5.
But I voted for 4♠, because, I confess, I would bid 4♠ at the table

[VixTD]

I gave both hands to three good players at the club last night and asked how they should be bid. None of them rebid 2♠ with the North hand, so maybe the teams need to revisit that decision as well. Two chose 3♠ and the club expert (who played in the match) said he would bid a 4♣ splinter(!). I don't really believe he would, but I can see the argument for 3♠, even though I'm sticking to my original choice.

Thanks very much for your thoughts, I'll feed back any useful points to the teams.

[mcphee]

I think playing imps 4S is what I would do. I never make game tries in 5 card side suits, how do you think partner might value 4 little clubs? If I had 2N asking about number of trumps it would be most likely should partner have just 3 they have short C and likely poor diamonds. Short D and long C which are poor is also good for me when he has just 3 trumps. I think not bidding game is being a whimp.

[VixTD]

MrAce, on 2014-February-27, 09:33, said:

You started talking about losers and controls then u lost me.

I didn't think what I was saying was difficult to follow except that I wrote "Qxx is 1.5 losers" when I meant "2.5 losers". Sorry if that confused you. (Or should that be "u"? That's where you lost me.)

[HighLow21]

3 spades or 3 clubs, help-suit trial, if that's in your system. (Partner will them go 4♠ with anything but the worst of what he's already described... call it 75% of the time.) 4 spades is an overbid but not unreasonable given the vulnerability.

[HighLow21]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-27, 09:44, said:

I have pointed it out a number of times already but there is no difference between the LTC/MLTC and any other bean counting scheme. In fact my belief is that a well-adjusted hcp scheme is more accurate than MLTC, since the latter overvalues shortages in many situations and has less flexibility than hcp adjustments. Bean counting is surprisingly effective most of the time when you get sophisticated about it!

I will take the opposite side of the debate on this--I feel LTC is extremely effective if it is backed by judgment, and this feels like an ideal hand for it. (I actually did the LTC when deciding on my vote here.)

Further, I think HCP adjustment systems, no matter how sophisticated, entirely miss the point... HCP is effective for defense (sometimes) and for balanced-hand NT bidding (usually, but even there, it has problems). It's glaringly wrong for unbalanced suit contract bidding, in my experience, because it starts with a system designed for a certain hand type, and then tries to adapt it for a completely different hand type. Why not just use an evaluation system geared around counting winners or losers with a known, sufficient trump fit?

[Zelandakh]

HighLow21, on 2014-March-03, 03:19, said:

Further, I think HCP adjustment systems, no matter how sophisticated, entirely miss the point...

Some previous discussions on this that might just show you that MLTC is simply a hcp adjustment system are here (+ follow-ups), here, here and here. And see here for Justin's (slightly humorous) take on it.

[mycroft]

I come from a K/S world, and it's 4♠ auto for me, at least at IMPS. Yes, partner could have crap, but shouldn't have the crap that would convince her to open 1NT - and is very unlikely to have 3 spades.

Given what I've been told above about Acol, okay, whatever game try I have that will pass the right information I make. I will admit that if the death crap 11 given above by Cyberyeti (KJ10x, KJ10xx, Jx, Qx) is possible, that the actual hand (KT54 AKT84 Q63 T) is a clear acceptance - AKT rather than KJT in the side suit, Qxx rather than three of the points being stranded quacks, singleton...