[jillybean]

johnu, on 2021-June-23, 03:45, said:

Yep, 8 losers is 8 losers. I will make a limit raise with this 8 loser hand

---

and with this 8 loser hand

---

Partner will know what to do because I have shown an 8 loser hand.

This is why I avoid "counting losers" and if I hear anyone else say "I bid game (-2) beacuse I had xx losing trick count" or, "I didn't bid game (3♠+2) beacuse I had xx losing trick count" I'm going to give up this game.

[blackshoe]

johnu, on 2021-June-23, 03:45, said:

Yep, 8 losers is 8 losers. I will make a limit raise with this 8 loser hand

---

and with this 8 loser hand

---

Partner will know what to do because I have shown an 8 loser hand.

Uh, huh. And will you (or your partner, as appropriate) tell the opponents about this extremely wide range for your "limit raise" or will you just say "limit raise" and leave it at that?

[mycroft]

no, he'll say that 1♠-3♠ is "an 8 loser hand". If they ask, he can try to explain what LTC means. If they can't get that, then "go with extras" seems appropriate. I would assume that he doesn't Alert it in the ACBL, which means "it shows Invitational values", since the definition of "Invitational" is "A hand sufficiently strong to indicate that partner should bid game unless
partner has a minimum." It doesn't say how this partnership evaluates "minimum", either.

Again, if I say "limit raise" (or don't Alert it, same thing) and you ask, would explaining it as "10-12ish, 4 card support" (even though some hands will go through mini-splinter, some will be downgraded into a constructive 2♠, maybe it's a great 8 or decent 9 with 5-card support, maybe..." be okay?

Or is it just those who don't use Milton Work Count, or evaluate "unusually", that have to be quite so specific?

(having said that, "8 loser" or not, I'm bidding 4 with the second hand :-)

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-June-24, 09:44, said:

Again, if I say "limit raise" (or don't Alert it, same thing) and you ask, would explaining it as "10-12ish, 4 card support" (even though some hands will go through mini-splinter, some will be downgraded into a constructive 2♠, maybe it's a great 8 or decent 9 with 5-card support, maybe..." be okay?

Well, If you have exceptions, those should be mentioned.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-June-25, 23:39, said:

Well, If you have exceptions, those should be mentioned.

Those don't sound like exceptions to me, just obvious possible variations following normal bridge logic. I would expect them even if playing together for the first time with no discussion.

[mycroft]

Where do you stop? If I ask you to explain your "15-17" NT, what do you say? And how many exceptions do you leave out? Or are you the "15-17, what more do you want to know?" (Of course blackshoe is not, but thousands are).

And once you have an answer to that, does it apply equivalently to my 1NT for takeout "8-14 or so, takeout of ♥, 3+in others"? or 1♣ "could be 2" "when is it 2?" "could be 2 is all I have to say"?

In other words, are we "yeah, there are exceptions, you're always allowed to use judgement, unless it's something I don't play, in which case you have to explain *all* of your judgement or it's not "full disclosure"?

Please note, I do expect some "you're playing something weird, you're likely not going to be able to get away with all the explanation shortcuts the 'standard' people do"; but both "I don't understand LTC, so if you don't explain it in Work points completely with no misses, then that's a violation" and "if it's weird, the explanation needs to handle all the exceptions" aren't "shortcuts".

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-June-26, 09:56, said:

Where do you stop? If I ask you to explain your "15-17" NT, what do you say? And how many exceptions do you leave out? Or are you the "15-17, what more do you want to know?" (Of course blackshoe is not, but thousands are).

And once you have an answer to that, does it apply equivalently to my 1NT for takeout "8-14 or so, takeout of ♥, 3+in others"? or 1♣ "could be 2" "when is it 2?" "could be 2 is all I have to say"?

In other words, are we "yeah, there are exceptions, you're always allowed to use judgement, unless it's something I don't play, in which case you have to explain *all* of your judgement or it's not "full disclosure"?

My 15(14)-17 is alerted and explained "may contain a 6 card minor, a 5 card major, a maximum of 9 cards in two suits, does not exclude a singleton; frequent upgrades with 5 card, in particular spades". Which is more than we actually discussed and only a little less than written.

I think the opponents are due that, as the agreement is definitely not standard although not exactly weird.

Our 1♧ that "could be 2 cards" gets announced exactly that way, by national regulations. They also specify that this implies 2 cards only in a 4=4=3=2, otherwise it would of course be explained.

What I would never explain is that a raise might be made on less HCP if I had more cards, and so on. In our country I would not feel obliged to specify that I had a splinter bid available as an alternative, either, although I would certainly do so against beginners.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2021-June-23, 03:45, said:

Yep, 8 losers is 8 losers. I will make a limit raise with this 8 loser hand

---

That's not an 8 loser hand when you make the Aces-vs-Queens adjustment. Subtract the number of aces from the number of queens, divide by 2, and add that to the losers. In this case, you add -2, so it becomes a 6-loser hand, hence a game force.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-June-26, 04:47, said:

Those don't sound like exceptions to me, just obvious possible variations following normal bridge logic. I would expect them even if playing together for the first time with no discussion.

What's obvious to one person is not necessarily obvious to another. And full disclosure means you don't make assumptions about what your opponents expect.

[bluenikki]

barmar, on 2021-June-27, 15:10, said:

That's not an 8 loser hand when you make the Aces-vs-Queens adjustment. Subtract the number of aces from the number of queens, divide by 2, and add that to the losers. In this case, you add -2, so it becomes a 6-loser hand, hence a game force.

Of course it is a game force. But it is not a game-forcing *raise*. There is no reason to commit the partnership to a strain in the first round.

Carl