[HeartA]

---

IMP，play "regular" partner.

[mike777]

pass wtp?

sure we can have a perfect fit and make game but my pards never do.

[the hog]

HeartA, on 2013-September-05, 23:02, said:

---

IMP，play "regular" partner.

Wrong forum. This should be in the beginner's forum. Pass.

[johnu]

3♥ is a big favorite to fail and 4♥ has such limited expectations of making that you can't justify making any game try. If partner has 3 hearts, it wasn't good enough for a direct raise, otherwise, you're looking at a 5-2 heart fit with a minimum hand that needs a perfect fit and probably some very good luck to make game.

[HeartA]

The question here is, Is 3♣ invitational or trying to "improve" 2♥?

[mr1303]

You don't try to improve 2H. 3C would show at least an ace more than you have.

[cherdano]

HeartA, on 2013-September-06, 00:53, said:

The question here is, Is 3♣ invitational or trying to "improve" 2♥?

Invitational. How else do you suggest to bid an invitational 5-5?

[billw55]

HeartA, on 2013-September-06, 00:53, said:

The question here is, Is 3♣ invitational or trying to "improve" 2♥?

How could it be an attempt to improve the contract? Partner already took preference.

[ArtK78]

First, I will say that I would pass 2♥, and that this is absolutely clear.

But this is not as trivial a problem as many are making it out to be.

Playing a forcing NT, opener will rebid 2♣ on a 3-card holding (and even on a 2-card holding if he is 4522 or if his system, like mine, requires 4 diamonds for a 2♦ rebid, but I digress).

So, it may very well be that clubs is a superior contract, as responder will take a "preference" to 2♥ holding more clubs than hearts if the disparity is only one card.

However, I know of no one who plays that a 3♣ rebid here with less than invitational values, so opener cannot afford to take another call.

[HeartA]

billw55, on 2013-September-06, 06:28, said:

How could it be an attempt to improve the contract? Partner already took preference.

The preference could be fake. partner didn't have 4-card ♠, didn't bid 2♦, it is very likely he has at least 3♣.

[johnu]

HeartA, on 2013-September-06, 10:00, said:

The preference could be fake. partner didn't have 4-card ♠, didn't bid 2♦, it is very likely he has at least 3♣.

It certainly could be a fake preference, but

1) There's no guarantee that is fake
2) 3♣ is a level higher so you need to take an additional trick just to break even.
3) There's no guarantee that clubs will play at a trick better than hearts
4) There's no way to play 3♣ since every bid over 2♥ shows at least an invitational hand in standard methods.

[1eyedjack]

I voted pass, wtp. But that is in the context of standard methods, where I expect 3C to show extras.

But HeartA argument is thought-provoking. Cast aside for a moment what is standard and re-think about what is optimal.

As he says, with 3-2-6-2 shape responder would probably rebid 2D over 2C.
In some partnerships it is possible for responder to have 3 Hearts on this auction, distinguishing between a good (immediate) 2H raise from a delayed. But I think it heavy favourite that he only has 2 of them.
Also, a 2N followup by opener over 2H is somewhat redundant as a balanced hand (why did he not raise 1N?) so COULD be used to show a proper game try. Likewise a 2S followup over 2H is available.
There does seem to be room for 3C here to be a simple correction.

And it certainly could work. Responder could have 2 Hearts and 4 Clubs. And even with just 2-3 in Hearts and Clubs, superficially it seems to gain nothing to go a level higher to play in a one-card better fit. But if you get tapped in Hearts in a 7 card fit and lose control it could certainly cost more than one trick.

The previous poster talks about guarantees. There are seldom guarantees in this game. That is not a reason to buck the numbers.

Can't say that I have totally made up my mind on this. One reason to pass is that you have yet to be doubled.And it seems to be a bit of brainache to cater for this special situation. What if opener's second suit had been Diamonds?

[beatrix45]

Dear, I think you have to say 'Pass'. Trying to possibly 'improve' the contract into clubs is just not possible with this bidding sequence. It is also not at all clear that 3♣ would do so, IF it were that kind of bid. It is not. You must learn when to just stop bidding because the more you try, the higher you get. This is one of those cases.

[madongjun]

Pass!

[MickyB]

HeartA, on 2013-September-06, 10:00, said:

The preference could be fake. partner didn't have 4-card ♠, didn't bid 2♦, it is very likely he has at least 3♣.

I like this a lot. Did 1NT deny three hearts in your methods? Could 2C have been short? If so, partner is 3253/3244/2254 and 3C rates to be much the better spot. Invitational 5H5C hands could start with an ART 2S bid.

If partner could have a weak three-card raise then obviously pass is clear. Also, at risk of stating the obvious, this logic only applies for auctions starting 1H-P-1N.

[Cyberyeti]

I would pass unless I picked up something during the auction that the guy in the passout seat was thinking of doing something, I suspect we can't beat 3♠ quite a bit of the time, and the only purpose of bidding would be to not give him an easy X/2♠. 3♣ for me is a better hand although I might like it not to be on this hand.

[Wackojack]

I voted pass uneasily as I know that decent opps are likely to get in to the auction with probably double then 2♠. This looks almost certain to make (at least an 8 card fit) and as cyber says 3♠ may make a lot of the time. If I could bid 3♣ for it to be passed I would but cannot because it is forcing in my book. So when opps do get to 2♠ I have to decide whether or not to bid 3♣. I think I would do this, considering myself to be very unlucky if we get doubled for penalty going off.

[Liversidge]

As a novice, I struggle a bit to fully grasp some of the expert advice given here. I am still using mechanistic guidelines to get me through. With an agreed 8 card suit, I count 6 losers in my hand, and assume 9 losers in partner's hand, making 15 in all, so in the absence of anything else to guide me the highest I'd go to would be 3 hearts, but only if I had to after a 2 spade bid from my opponents. It's a primitive rationale. I can see that it lets the opposition into the bidding and they might bid and make 3 Spades. Is it a reasonable approach for a novice?

[1eyedjack]

Liversidge, on 2014-January-27, 12:09, said:

As a novice, I struggle a bit to fully grasp some of the expert advice given here. I am still using mechanistic guidelines to get me through. With an agreed 8 card suit, I count 6 losers in my hand, and assume 9 losers in partner's hand, making 15 in all, so in the absence of anything else to guide me the highest I'd go to would be 3 hearts, but only if I had to after a 2 spade bid from my opponents. It's a primitive rationale. I can see that it lets the opposition into the bidding and they might bid and make 3 Spades. Is it a reasonable approach for a novice?

Quite reasonable. If they pushed you, you might try 3C rather than 3H.
It is not uncommon for a minimum 1-level response to have an LTC of 10.
S:Qxx
H:xx
D:Kxxxx
CJxx
Note that if Hearts are the envisaged trump suit, you should count 3 losers, not 2, in the Heart suit.

We generally shy away from applying losing trick count until a trump fit is confirmed, and preference back to 2H in this sequence suggests otherwise.

[Zelandakh]

Liversidge, on 2014-January-27, 12:09, said:

As a novice, I struggle a bit to fully grasp some of the expert advice given here. I am still using mechanistic guidelines to get me through. With an agreed 8 card suit, I count 6 losers in my hand, and assume 9 losers in partner's hand, making 15 in all

I would recommend against the LTC, not because it is not reasonable but rather because it is actually simpler to convert it to a normal point count and then you can additionally fine tune the numbers more easily. The (modern) LTC is functionally identical to a system where Ace = 3; King = 2; Queen = 1 and Void = 6; Singleton = 3; Doubleton = 1, which in turn is functionally identical to Ace = 4.5; King = 3; Queen = 1.5; Void = 9; Singleton = 4.5; Doubleton = 1.5.

Notice the similarity of this 4.5 - 3 - 1.5 scale to the Milton Work 4 - 3 - 2. Notice also that the values for shortages (9 - 4.5 - 1.5) are considerably higher than the typical 5 - 3 - 1 that is recommended. This highlights an issue with the LTC where it tends to overvalue shortages in normal (8 card) fits.

So putting this all together, a strategy for building up a "mechanistic" approach to evaluation would be to start with the regular 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 Milton Work count but upgrade aces a little bit and downgrade queens and jacks. Well, that is unsupported queens and jacks. You see it turns out that lesser honours tend to be more valuable in combination with aces and kings. With a fit we can then add shortage points. My suggestion would be to stick with 5 - 3 - 1 rather than going up to LTC levels unless you have a super (10 card) fit. Finally, you need to pay attantion to the auction generally. If partner opens 1♥ and we have 2 card support that is much more positive than having a void. Similarly honours in partner's suits are more valuable than normal; and honours in partner's shortages much less valuable.

In other words, even such a "mechanistic" approach requires you to constantly adjust your hand evaluation beyond just a simple number, whether that be hcp, Losers, Honour Tricks or bananas. After a while these adjustments will come naturally and you will probably be able to drop any conscious counting effort. That will also enable you to think in terms of fractions (or as I say pluses and minuses) rather than outright points. I would also recommed that you look out for posts by mikeh and perhaps even google old posts of his. He tends to be able to describe this evaluation process very well and in some detail. He absolutely does not use any point-based adjustment method whatsoever though, so some of it may be a little too advanced at forst. Nonetheless you can perhaps see how to incorporate ever more accurate adjustments to your model as well as getting exposure to the more refined world of expert judgement. Nearly all of us here at BBF benefit from that!