[gnasher]

 rhm, on 2012-August-01, 05:06, said:

If
♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

has seven losers how many does

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

have?

Obviously this didn't come across very well, and now I'm going to make my joke even less funny by explaining it. I was satirising (possibly unfairly) excessive reliance on the Losing Trick Count, its lack of accuracy, and Nigel's rejection of the obvious 2NT rebid. I don't, in fact, use the Losing Trick Count to determine how many notrumps to bid, or indeed for any other purpose.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-01, 06:32

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-July-31, 11:58, said:

Playing Acol with strong twos,

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

I assume you mean Acol with a weak notrump?

I'd probably still respond 1♥, because partner's most likely hand-type is a balanced 15+, and I'd rather play 2♥ or 3♥ than 1♣.

If partner now made a game-forcing jump to 2♠, I'd pass it. My objective in responding was to improve the contract. I've probably achieved that, but even if I haven't, bidding again is likely to make it worse.

When you agree that a bid is forcing, that's an agreement about what you'll do if your hand matches partner's expectations, not an absolute commitment to bid regardless of whether you've got your previous bids.

[chasetb]

 rhm, on 2012-August-01, 05:06, said:

If ♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

has seven losers how many does

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx have?

Rainer Herrmann

LTC sucks, we know that. If you are to use any losing count, use the Italian loser count. The first hand comes out to 7.5 losers, the second hand 9.25. Here's the link - http://www.clairebri...lindbernard.pdf

I stick by my premise that I downgrade the first hand (hand #6) into a 1NT opener, for a balanced hand it's 16+ imo. Once partner says Diamonds, my hand shoots back up in value, so I'll show it by bidding 3♦.

[the hog]

 rhm, on 2012-August-01, 05:06, said:

If
♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

has seven losers how many does

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

have?

Rainer Herrmann

More than 7 if you know anything about LTC. Qxx is 2 1/2 losers.

[Yu18772]

 awm, on 2012-July-31, 17:53, said:

5) 5♦ = 10, 6♦ = 5, 4♦ = 3. Again seems pretty clear-cut. Closer to a slam bid than to 4♦. Double or cue or 4NT all show a different type of hand than this.

Hi Adam I am missing something, what does
3♠-X-P-4♥
P-5♦
or
3♠-X-4♠-P
P-5♦

show? I mean may be one needs better suit for this, but is that really a different type of hand ?
Yu

[awm]

 Yu18772, on 2012-August-01, 18:32, said:

Hi Adam I am missing something, what does
3♠-X-P-4♥
P-5♦
or
3♠-X-4♠-P
P-5♦

show? I mean may be one needs better suit for this, but is that really a different type of hand ?
Yu

This is not the way to show a strong one-suited hand over a preempt. Doubling and then bidding a suit shows a strong flexible hand; typical would be something like a 0364 or 1363 pattern with a lot of strength. These types of hands are actually quite common; strong one-suiters are rarer and can easily be shown by jump overcalls (which are not weak over the preempt of course).

[Yu18772]

 awm, on 2012-August-01, 23:30, said:

This is not the way to show a strong one-suited hand over a preempt. Doubling and then bidding a suit shows a strong flexible hand; typical would be something like a 0364 or 1363 pattern with a lot of strength. These types of hands are actually quite common; strong one-suiters are rarer and can easily be shown by jump overcalls (which are not weak over the preempt of course).

Thanks! Good to know....then I would change it to 5♦.
Yu

[nige1]

Playing standard 2/1

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

[lalldonn]

 nige1, on 2012-August-03, 18:16, said:

Playing standard 2/1

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

I don't see what this has to do with your problems, but I would respond 1♥ then pass the (game forcing) 2♠ bid.

[JLOGIC]

lol gnasher, I thought it was funny, but people don't expect it from you I guess

[ArtK78]

Just a comment about the references to LTC.

LTC does not suck. But surely you will think it does if you try to use it for bidding notrump contracts.

LTC does not apply to notrump bidding. Use point count. It is far more reliable for bidding a balanced hand opposite a balanced hand.

[nige1]

Thank you all for your instructive comments. FWIW
[3] Partner has ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ KJ ♣ Axxxx. I overbid 3N which was a lucky make (♦ are 2-2) I now agree 3♦ is enough.
[4] Partner has ♦ x and ♣ KJxx . I bid 5♦ on the mountain. RHO has ♦ K so 6♦ makes.
[5] I held the other hand ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ xxxxx ♣ Qxx, so 2N is high enough. Like Ben Lessard, partner jump-rebid 2♥. We ended up too high.

[mikl_plkcc]

IMO:

4. 2♦, certainly. I reserve 3♦ as a forcing bid, which shows extras. I plan to rebid 3♦ after 2♦, showing exactly this.

5. 4♦. I don't feel safe going to 5♦.

6. 2NT, certainly. This is the standard way of bidding balanced hands with 18-19 HCPs.

[han]

Wow, two people that took gnasher seriously, that's rather insulting! I guess it is Andy's fault for building up an honest reputation.

On all three hands I agreed with awm (3D, 5D, 2NT), and thought the decisions were quite clear.

[phil_20686]

 rhm, on 2012-July-31, 03:30, said:

Strange question. What does this have to do with 2/1 ?
Do you know any natural system where a second round jump shift in a new suit by an unlimited opener is not played as forcing to game?

Rainer Herrmann

Yes, its not uncommon to play it as a mini-splinter in acol, and 1x-1y-1z as natural and forcing.

[SteveMoe]

 rhm, on 2012-August-01, 05:06, said:

If
♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

has seven losers how many does

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

have?

Rainer Herrmann

Well put Rainer.
Last I looked ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦Axx ♣Axx appears to be 8 losers but is not: there are 4 Aces more than 0 queens, we adjust 4/2 = 2 losers, so 8-2 = 6 losers total.
I see the quoted hand having 5.5 losers.