[PhantomSac]

biggerclub, on 2014-November-22, 20:00, said:

The fact that P made game with this highly unsuitable (albeit MAX) hand . . . .

You bemoan the fact that you cannot give or get information to make bidding game intelligent (or not). Yet on these two hands . . . short of seeing the full hands . . . upon exchange of the most pertinent information (the club void) you and partner will stop short of a sound game.

Which, although just one hand, is a strong argument for just bidding game here.

Partner had a fifth heart, that makes our hand much more valuable. Hard to say he had a highly unsuitable hand.

[aguahombre]

It seems as if Jinksy and his partner each made decisions which complemented each other well this time. Even though a five-card major is acceptable in their style for a 12-14 NT opening, it would not have occurred to me to do that with such a suit-oriented hand. So, we would open 1H and get to 4H by North. Oh, well.

[biggerclub]

PhantomSac, on 2014-November-22, 20:41, said:

Partner had a fifth heart, that makes our hand much more valuable. Hard to say he had a highly unsuitable hand.

Give him the KQTx in ♥s instead and put the A in ♣s . . . . The point is that you really cannot know what will make . . . even if you have the information. I may have overstated it to say "highly unsuitable" but I remain willing to defend unsuitable, at least. Nearly 43% of his strength is of no use to us whatsoever. And we still make game. On a lucky break, to be sure . . . but certainly no more lucky than having KQJ opposite our void is unlucky.

I don't get to play a lot of weak NT here so I am not currently in shape to say whether it's fair for me to expect 2 of 5 honors from partner in Hs after his 2♥ call. . . just if he has them, I think game is on upwards of 75% of the time.

Do you think partner will bid on if you are allowed to whisper to him (after his 2♥ call): "I have a club void (that is, a 3 suited hand), and 9 HCP"? He will feel his clubs are wasted and he will be right. Game makes anyway because both players have prime values . . . and yes, the extra trump helps a lot . . . but if that extra trump were removed and another honor replaced one of the other small cards that would help a lot too.

[Free]

Jinksy, on 2014-November-22, 19:35, said:

here I just saw a hand with very weak trumps and quick outside losers and passed mindlessly, then only had reason to think about it after I found we'd missed a solid game (P had something like Axx Axxxx xx KQJ).

When you have ruffing value, weak trumps are actually an asset (you don't want to ruff with trumps AKQJ right?).

Your analysis is very negative, you can also look at the hand from a positive point of view: you have ♦AK which is double control and you also control ♣s completely (with only 7HCP). There are various play strategies that might work: ruff ♣ losers in your hand, develop your ♠s,...

[Wackojack]

PhantomSac, on 2014-November-22, 18:44, said:

Game is 96 % to make with this hand opposite a weak NT? I am gonna say something went wrong with your simulation

Very true. I didn't inspect the yellow tab and thought it was 15-17 no trump.

[PhantomSac]

biggerclub, on 2014-November-23, 01:52, said:

Do you think partner will bid on if you are allowed to whisper to him (after his 2♥ call): "I have a club void (that is, a 3 suited hand), and 9 HCP"?

Absolutely. Construct some 9 HCP hands with a club void and I think you will agree. His clubs are also not wasted, a likely line is to set up his hand via a ruffing club hook.

[PhantomSac]

Wackojack, on 2014-November-23, 02:13, said:

Very true. I didn't inspect the yellow tab and thought it was 15-17 no trump.

To be honest I would be completely shocked if game was 96 % opposite a strong NT lol, 96 % is a lot. Thats better than being in 7N on AKQ AKQTxx xxx xx opp xxx xxxx AKQ AK. I think something else went wrong but good to know you had partner at 3 points more than they had!

[eagles123]

this has been a very interesting and informative thread for me, ty Jinsky for posting the hand

[Jinksy]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-22, 20:56, said:

It seems as if Jinksy and his partner each made decisions which complemented each other well this time. Even though a five-card major is acceptable in their style for a 12-14 NT opening, it would not have occurred to me to do that with such a suit-oriented hand. So, we would open 1H and get to 4H by North. Oh, well.

Yeah, we don't have a choice in our system. The only other possibility would be a 2H opening, but that would significantly misrepresent the shape of the hand. At least P knows this is one of your possible holdings for a NT bid.

[jdeegan]

PhantomSac, on 2014-November-22, 20:39, said:

You're gonna laugh at me but 9 points + 3 for the void with 4 trumps and an 8 card fit. I think that's GOREN? (add infinite with a 9 card fit and 4 trumps for a void). That gets you to 12, your partner has 12-14, so in support points you probably have an invite. However since the downsides of inviting (can't show your shortness, may induce them to double when things are bad, more likely to induce a trump lead, etc) outweigh the gains (stopping in 3H opposite a minimum), just bid game.

If you really want some way to quantify what to do here, I think using support points is fine (+1 for doubleton, +2 for singleton, +3 for void with 8 trumps. With 9 trumps +1 +3 +5. Add less if you have only 3 trumps, 3 trumps and a void def not worth +5 obviously, even opp a 6 card suit.) So with a singleton and 7 points and 4 trumps you have a minimum limit raise opp a 1M opener, etc, it's really not that far off from accurate.

Nobody should laugh. Goren's support point analysis worked 50 years ago, and it is still a good basis for an initial evaluation. The finer points of the analysis were also known back in the day - eg. lotsa trumps and nothing wasted in the opponents suits is good. This just had not been demonstrated using a computer or codified yet.

[aguahombre]

jdeegan, on 2014-November-23, 16:09, said:

Nobody should laugh. Goren's support point analysis worked 50 years ago, and it is still a good basis for an initial evaluation. The finer points of the analysis were also known back in the day - eg. lotsa trumps and nothing wasted in the opponents suits is good. This just had not been demonstrated using a computer or codified yet.

Ah, come on. Give em an opportunity to laugh at one of our best contributors, whether it is deserved or not.

[jdeegan]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-23, 17:49, said:

Ah, come on. Give em an opportunity to laugh at one of our best contributors, whether it is deserved or not.

Somebody must have taught Lew. Lew taught Bob. Bob taught Justin. Justin is doing a wonderful job trying to teach others. Just trying to clear away some of the BS.

[aguahombre]

jdeegan, on 2014-November-23, 18:38, said:

Somebody must have taught Lew. Lew taught Bob. Bob taught Justin. Justin is doing a wonderful job trying to teach others. Just trying to clear away some of the BS.

Nobody taught Mathe anything. He either agreed with his "forefathers" or he didn't. And it didn't matter whether he was right or not. Things were the way he said they were.

[rmnka447]

I'm a blaster also, especially at teams. Non vulnerable, the scoring methodology says it's about even whether to bid game vs. part score at IMPs. But making thin games is one of the keys to winning at IMPs.

If, as one previous poster stated, you add points for the void, you've got enough to bid game. By LTC, you have a 7 loser hand opposite approximately a 7 loser opener, so you figure to make about 10 tricks ([7+7 actual losers] - 24 possible losers = -10 losers or 10 winners).

[aguahombre]

rmnka447, on 2014-November-24, 15:21, said:

I'm a blaster also, especially at teams. Non vulnerable, the scoring methodology says it's about even whether to bid game vs. part score at IMPs. But making thin games is one of the keys to winning at IMPs.

If, as one previous poster stated, you add points for the void, you've got enough to bid game. By LTC, you have a 7 loser hand opposite approximately a 7 loser opener, so you figure to make about 10 tricks ([7+7 actual losers] - 24 possible losers = -10 losers or 10 winners).

There is a little more to LTC than that.

[MrAce]

I think I owe an apology to Jinsky. When I wrote what I wrote in this topic I thought this was a 15-17 NT. I still believe we should bid game, but making another bid than 4♥ is not as absurd as I said it was, vs weak NT.

My bad bro, Sorry I really thought you passed 2♥ after finding a fit and your pd showed 15-17. I am sure you will agree that in this context passing 2♥ would be absurd.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2014-November-24, 20:31, said:

I think I owe an apology to Jinsky. When I wrote what I wrote in this topic I thought this was a 15-17 NT. I still believe we should bid game, but making another bid than 4♥ is not as absurd as I said it was, vs weak NT.

My bad bro, Sorry I really thought you passed 2♥ after finding a fit and your pd showed 15-17. I am sure you will agree that in this context passing 2♥ would be absurd.

Welcome to the "stepped on my ....." club.

[Jinksy]

MrAce, on 2014-November-24, 20:31, said:

I think I owe an apology to Jinsky. When I wrote what I wrote in this topic I thought this was a 15-17 NT. I still believe we should bid game, but making another bid than 4♥ is not as absurd as I said it was, vs weak NT.

My bad bro, Sorry I really thought you passed 2♥ after finding a fit and your pd showed 15-17. I am sure you will agree that in this context passing 2♥ would be absurd.

No worries, and yeah, I agree

[WellSpyder]

I had a similar decision last night, holding ♠J852 ♥KQJ42 ♦975 ♣7 opposite a 15-17NT (imp scoring, love all). Like OP, I tried 2♣(Stayman) and heard 2♠ from partner. Would people just blast this one as well?

[whereagles]

>>> ♠J852 ♥KQJ42 ♦975 ♣7

8 losers opposite 6 from the 1NT hand, so in principle I'd say shoot game, yes.

Thing is, the low controls increase loser count to 9, so it's not that clear. Do it at teams, but maybe invite at MPs.