[thepossum]

Hi all

I rather overestimated this hand.

Can you explain your choices and how you would evaluate it and what your follow up bids may be depending on progress of auction

regards P

---

[helene_t]

I have 7 losers. I could be lucky that ♣A is onside, but otherwise p has to cover 4 of them.

♦KJ + ♣QJ would do if I don't suffer a ruff in either minor, but more typically partner has wasted values in ♥.

It's close but I pass. Playing with a human, I would maybe reason that partner is likely to stretch at this vulnerability, while LHO's double should be sound. Whether this also applies against robots I don't know.

[thepossum]

Thanks Helene

Can I ask how you evaluate losers on that hand. I have a slightly different way of evaluating losers -hence overestimating Should I adjust loser counts if I have a double sitting over me? You are counting everything outside spades as losers?

[smerriman]

My minor honours look worthless with a double on my left, so I'm not interested in game. On the other hand, I definitely want to compete to 3♠. If 3♠ is an invite now, then I pass and bid it next time.

[ahydra]

A lot depends on whether partner has different ways to raise to 2S, e.g. Cappeletti transfers. I'll assume not for the N&B forum, so the 2S here could be quite wide-ranging, perhaps 3-8(9).

I would evaluate the hand as 6 losers (1H, 3D, 2C). But better here is visualisation: bearing in mind CA is likely off, we need partner to have at least ♦KJ ♣J10 and no wastage in hearts to have a shot at game. There are still potentially ~14 HCPs to go around, so it's not unreasonable to make a game try. The question is, which of the given bids will cause partner to evaluate his hand the way we need him to, which I'm not sure. Normally I would play 3D here as "need help in diamonds" which is pretty much accurate for this hand. If 2NT shows, or can be refined to show, heart shortage specifically then that might work, as we want partner to downgrade things like ♥KJ but upgrade ♥A and honours in the minors.

I can understand a pass too, though at IMPs I would much rather take a shot at game if it's close.

ahydra

[thepossum]

Hi

Thankyou all for your comments. In response to the various queries above, with my GiB partner

- North's 2S is described as a free bid with 6-10 TPs (likely fewer HCPs) so stronger than a regular 2S limit I think
- an immediate 3S by South suggests a strong enough opener (16-18 TPs) to invite N to game (an overestimate clearly)
- the 2NT game try allows specifying the heart shortage next time round after North shows three clubs (probably small), after showing hearts North bids to game again
- 3 club bid is doubled again (16+ TPs) followed by game bid from North
- pass is doubled again followed this time by 3S from North (described as a Law bid to the 3-level )

Its quite interesting since North had only 7 points but 4 spades (upgrading slightly) and the decision on how to define strength was clearly south's decision based on the above bids. Anything other than a pass is regarded as strong enough for North to go to game

So clearly downgrading the hand was the right call 6 or 7 losers valuation was fine. I was far too optimistic not adjusting my initial 5 loser assessment - hence only making 9 tricks. (EDIT actually after bidding to 4 I (and others) only make 8 tricks - you can make nine if you don't overestimate your hand. One player managed an overtrick in 3S - due to a bad midhand lead - and only a few made 3S) Almost everyone went down one or more tricks Double dummy gives only 8 tricks.

Ace of clubs was offside but with smart play you can make your queen of diamonds due to King in East

It was an interesting hand and overestimated (or not well enough played) by many of us

---

[helene_t]

thepossum, on 2019-August-11, 20:20, said:

Thanks Helene

Can I ask how you evaluate losers on that hand. I have a slightly different way of evaluating losers -hence overestimating Should I adjust loser counts if I have a double sitting over me? You are counting everything outside spades as losers?

By losers I mean tricks which I am likely to lose if partner doesn't have any help.

There are zero losers in spades - ♠Jxxx offside is low enough probability already, and almost impossible given the double.

But all the side suit cards are losers. ♦AK onside is unlikely given the double so I lose three diamond tricks if opps are not helpful and partner has a small tripleton in diamonds. Clubs should maybe only count for a bit less than three losers, as the ace may be onside, or LHO may lead ♣A or be endplayed at some point.

Partner can of course be expected to cover some of the losers. If, for example, he has ♣JTx, he would count that as three losers also, but there's a reasonable chance to catch ♣Q onside. With his actual hand, he can ruff one diamond and he had ♦A. If ♥A is onside we may have time to discard a minor suit loser on ♥K. Then we need one more trick. If West underleads ♦K, you will make it.

[thepossum]

Thanks Helene

I just used my basic loser count which was only 5 losers (one heart and two each of diamonds and clubs) and I didn't adjust.

However I think I clearly underestimate my losers on a hand like that by one, irrespective of the double

I'm re-reading Klinger and (ignoring the double adjustment) I should count Qxx as 2.5 losers giving me an initial 5.5 losers. Then adjust after the double.

Do you count Qxx as 3 losers always.

Come to think of it, isnt Kxx 2.5 losers too. Or can you make it 2 on the chance North has the Ace or Queen (without the adjustment for double)

[Tramticket]

If you were playing opposite a human, the 2♠ raise would usually promise quite a bit less than the 6-10 stated. With support and this many points, I would often be bidding 3♠. With most humans, the main concern would be whether to save against opp's game!

But given the 6-10 stated range, I am inviting. I want to be in game if partner is top of range.

helene_t, on 2019-August-11, 22:20, said:

But all the side suit cards are losers. ♦AK onside is unlikely given the double so I lose three diamond tricks if opps are not helpful and partner has a small tripleton in diamonds. Clubs should maybe only count for a bit less than three losers, as the ace may be onside, or LHO may lead ♣A or be endplayed at some point.

Sorry Helene, but I'm not evaluating K98 as three losers, even with a take-out double on my left. Partner is marked with some points as discussed above and they are not in spades - so there is a good chance that K98 will play for only two losers.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on 2019-August-11, 22:20, said:

By losers I mean tricks which I am likely to lose if partner doesn't have any help.

There are zero losers in spades - ♠Jxxx offside is low enough probability already, and almost impossible given the double.

But all the side suit cards are losers. ♦AK onside is unlikely given the double so I lose three diamond tricks if opps are not helpful and partner has a small tripleton in diamonds. Clubs should maybe only count for a bit less than three losers, as the ace may be onside, or LHO may lead ♣A or be endplayed at some point.

Partner can of course be expected to cover some of the losers. If, for example, he has ♣JTx, he would count that as three losers also, but there's a reasonable chance to catch ♣Q onside. With his actual hand, he can ruff one diamond and he had ♦A. If ♥A is onside we may have time to discard a minor suit loser on ♥K. Then we need one more trick. If West underleads ♦K, you will make it.

If you count K98 as 3 losers on this auction, you also have to count Jx as a very likely cover card... I don't think this is a useful way of evaluating a hand (but then again, loser count is crap to begin with of course).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming, I understand 2NT correct, I would use it to Show my heart shortness,
if 2NT is asking Partner to Show a shortness (my vote), than I would go with
showing club values.

Regarding Evaluation:
I have 14HCP and a good 6 carder, which makes this a Hand strong enough for an invite,
but not strong enough for a game force.
Using shortage Points instead of the 6 carder will give you the same.

LTC tells you 5-6 looser, 5 being very optimistic, a 6 looser Hand is worth an invite,
A single raise by Partner by Partner showes 8-9 looser.

So in short: Both Evaluation Methods tend to Point toward inviting.

The opponents bidding indicates, that they have some heart values, which is Good News,
most of their Points will be behind you, which is Bad News.
X is also indicating some kind of bal. Distribution ( excluding spade shortage, which
means the Key Cards are more likely evenly distributed, which is reducing the
Bad News.)

In short: The Good News cancels the Bad News, so it is basically Random Noise.

With Kind regards
Marlowe

[HardVector]

I'd be more worried about what THEY can make in hearts instead of what you can make in spades.

edit: I made my original comment and vote of 4s before seeing responders hand. After seeing it, I'm willing to bet that 4h their way is pretty easy. My 4s bid is 2-way. It may make, or it will preempt them out of their vulnerable game.