Can't please everyone - LTC

[ian84]

I was playing in the Main room with an IAC friend and his reg non-IAC partner. I picked up a p identifying himself as an expert.

I opened the following hand in 1st seat with 1 . All pass and I make +3. Partner says '1  18 pts?' I say 'Yes, how would you bid it, p?'. By answer, he leaves the table.

I don't usually play LTC unless I'm with a p that's playing it. There was no mention of LTC in the expert's profile.

My IAC friend suggests that maybe I should open this hand with 2  - which I might well do if I was playing LTC.

In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might open it with 4  . I'm not a big fan of opening at game level, as it generally doesn't need much from p to be in slam territory, and game openers are generally played as shut out bids.

I got told off by Hoki for suggesting a 2 opening on a similar hand last week.

Thoughts appreciated

My hand:
  AKQ732
  A3
  KQ52
  4

My p's hand
  J4
  T85
  JT96
  JT53

[kenberg]

First thought: One of the attractions of IAC is that people stick around for more than one hand.
Second thought along the same lines: Judging by one hand that has gone wrong is a very bad practice. Not just unfair, but also jumping to conclusions often get the jumper to the wrong conclusions.

Now about the hand, That's a very nice J your partner has, and the Jx is nice to see as well. Either of us could give your partner a different 3 count where game is pretty hopeless.

If you had a long strong club suit and a stiff spade, a 1 opening is usually safe. Someone always bids their spades, they just can't help themselves. Here, with the opening as 1 , the chance of it being passed out are greater. But that might not be bad at all.

2 ? Now I don't know that it is entirely clear that you will get to 4 even  if you open it 2 . Let's assume that you play 2 as waiting, and which is what I do and what should probably be assumed with a pick-up partner. It goes 2 - 2 - 2 . Now what? With any moderately regular partner, 3 is a second negative. Now? 3 would be passable after the second negative (again playing as I play). 3 , a new suit, I play as non-passable. Hopefully partner gives something of a false preference to spades. Do you raise 3 to 4 ? So far partner has said nothing positive except that he has at least some spades.

I definitely would not open this 4 .  As you note, you can miss a lot of slams that way.

So, bottom line, would I open 1 or 2 ? I think 1 but I am not sure. Even when I have spades usually someone makes some noise when I have only 18 highs. But sometimes everyone passes and  we make 4. As Larry Cohen says on vugraph, Next!

The only thing I really feel strongly about is not judging either choice too harshly. If you one day set out to win a major tournament with a regular partner, you should go over such things in detail. Playing on-line pick up in the main bridge club you do whichever seems right to you. And if pard picks up and leaves, good riddance.

[OliverC]

Opening 4 ? That almost back to pre-Culbertson style, Ian. I don't think any competent modern player would remotely consider that, for the reasons Ken has already stated.

At the end of the day, that's a very nice 18-count, but personally I'd open it 1 without a nanosecond's further thought. 2 works fine here because Partner happens to have the perfect fillers in Diamonds to fit with your hand and the Jack to bolster your trump solidity.

You can't base your bidding on X-ray vision or hindsight. Systemically, an 18-count with 4 "quick tricks" is very nice, but even with 6-4 shape  and "good" points it wouldn't normally be equated with a 2 Opening in 2/1, SA or Acol. Give yourself a 7th Spade and 7141 shape and I would definitely move to opening  2 rather than 1 .

[Masse24]

I, too, would open 1 .

I know a handful of players who open 2 on any hand with four losers or less. Ugh! I have seen it work wonderfully on one hand, and backfire horribly the next. The problem with using only "four or less losers" as your 2 threshold, is that opposite a partner with values, it is almost impossible to stay out of slam. Additionally, as the partner of such a bidder, how much trust can you put in subsequent 2 bids? There is a lot to be said for partnership trust.

Using LTC (only) as a metric to open (or not open) 2 is, in my opinion, flawed.

As an example:  QJxxxx  QJxxxxx is four losers. But I doubt any competent player would open it 2 .

If you polled this hand on Bridgewinners, my guess is that something around 85% to 90% open this 1 .

[kenberg]

One more thought about Losing Trick Count. The name suggests that it is a count of our losers, but often it becomes formulaic. If I could get to dummy a couple of times to lead toward my diamonds that might hold down the losers. But if partner has anything like that, then he will respond to 1 . If the auction goes 1 -P -P -P then there is a fine chance I will be leading these diamonds from my hand. This is highly likely to increase the number of losers.

My guess is that any reasonably complete version of LTC takes these things into consideration. 

I looked up an old copy of Better Bidding with Bergen. He gives three criteria that could warrant opening 2 .

The third is: You would not merely be disapointed, you would be sick to your stomach if you opened a one-bid and your partner passed.
I like that.
On Ian's hand you might well be sick to your stomach after the dummy comes down with Jx of trump and JTxx diamonds, but until you see the dummy I think "disappointed" is right, "sick to your stomach" is a stretch.

Here is a hand that Bergen sees as satisfying his sickness criterion.

AJT
AKQJ8
KQJT
8

Note that you do not at all mind having to lead diamonds from your hand if partner is broke. And, if partner has, say, a stiff heart but he has diamonds, 5 has chances if he has just a little.

The Bergen example will not always make game, of course not. But there are many ways that it might.

I am not on any campaign against LTC, it can be useful at times.  But with the diamond suit of Ian's hand, I think that if partner is broke then declarer will most likely be losing three diamond tricks, whatever a formula might say. Of course if partner has the J, and even better the JT, then that's a different story.

[ggriffin0]

Interestingly enough I will be doing a series on LTC starting tomorrow. Regarding the treatment of 2 , it is hard to say what is right if one doesn’t have well defined parameters. Without defined parameters and with a pickup partner I would concur with those who have already offered their opinion.

That said there are ways to define such a hand as a strong opener within the limits of LTC while being less than haphazard with results. But as we have often pointed out here, that relies upon agreements within the scope of a partner which does not apply to this dilemma.

Non-cuthbertson, we open 1 and throw 100 gummy worms at partner when they complain 

[ian84]

Thx all,
   Ken, yes 'Good riddance' was pretty much my reaction. If I've done something wrong, I hope my Partner, even a pick up partner, to talk it over with me. Saying '1S 18pts' and then leaving is just grossly rude imo, and yes, I rarely encounter anyone 'flouncing off; when playing with other IAC players

    Todd, as noted I only play LTC when I'm playing with someone who's agreed to play it with me. However, LTC is not my sole hand evaluation technique. I generally start with raw HCPs and downgrade for any quacks, and may use Bergen Hand Evaluation if agreed with my p. I will almost certainly use Bergen for the rebid 

     Oliver, as noted I am not a great fan of game-openers. However, I assure you, they are still in widespread use - and I have 1 IAC partner who plays them regularly

     Grant, I agree entirely with your response. I may have to think about acquiring some revolting UK candy in readiness of any further poor behaviour

[kenberg]

Here is something that I think applies in many cases, including the hand you present.

Imagine instead a pair of balanced hands. Often 25 hcps is adequate for game. But this is far more likely to be true if it is, say 15 facing 10 than if it is 20 facing 5.  With 25 highs we often cannot just claim nine tricks, we have to develop them and, after developing them we have to get to them and cash them. I think 20 facing 5 will often fail to produce 9 tricks.


The hand you present is of course not balanced but I think that the same general idea applies. High card points, quick tricks, losing trick count, all of these things can be useful but we still have to develop and cash the tricks, and the chances of doing that will be much better if we can move back and forth between to two hands.

Everyone has experienced this. So we just need to take it into account when we evaluate the hands.  With KQxx it would be nice to go to the board twice and lead toward it. If you can't do that, and if partner has a hand where he would pass a 1 opening you probably can't,  then your chances are much reduced.

Back for just a minute about this getting up and leaving, and other huffiness. I played in a club game today and we had a decent game. Sixty some percent, first in our direction. But that doesn't mean that everything went right. On one hand I had about zip and partner kept making take-out doubles, eventually I played in 3 , non-vul, fortunately undoubled. If I held it to -100, which I guess was possible by the double dummy analysis,  it's a good board. -150 was not. But that's one board. It does no good at all to get all worked up over it. In my experience, about 80% of the time the guy getting huffy is the guy who made the error.

[amre_man]

AKQ732
  A3
  KQ52
  4

My p's hand
  J4
  T85
  JT96
  JT53

All my convention cards mention strength or a 4 loser hand.  I have not been talked out of opening this hand 2 .  But I am no expert.  That time may yet come.  That is being talked out of it, not the expert part.   I might need some other encouragement if not for 6 card suit led by AKQ.  But I comfortably have 2 rebids and if my p leaves me in 3 , so be it.  If my p bids 3NT I would likely overcall 4 .  I need a single trick from my P and am willing to take that chance.  Some days you're the windshield, some days the bug.

I will generally only bid the hcp but will look to LTC as long as I have a response to my p.  Position and vulnerability will impact this decision.

As to the partner who left.  Some people just awake and are determined to have a bad day.

[kenberg]

Just speculating a bit:

Sample

   Declarer
  AKQ732
  A3
  KQ52
  4

  Dummy 
  54
  T852
  T76
  AT53

I have given dummy the A so dummy supplies a trick, and I have given dummy two spades so we have a decent chance, although not at all a certainty, of having no losers in the trump suit.  Of course it is also true that with this A and with two trump partner might well bid 1NT over a 1 opening, but let's see what the chances are for 4 .

We are assuming six spade tricks and clearly one club and one heart. We need two tricks in diamonds. Are they there? Maybe, maybe not. Diamonds might break 3-3, that's a 36% chance they tell me. Or they might be 4-2 with the Ax to declarer's right. That seems to work out to another 8%. So on a club or heart lead we draw trump, go to the board in clubs, lead a diamond and when a low diamond appears we play the Q. If the Q loses to the A, we need diamonds to be 3-3. If the Q wins, we next play a low diamond. If this results in the A falling, from the original Ax holding, we again get two diamond tricks. If not, they still might be 3-3.

So we need spades to be 3-2, that's 68%, and we need the 36% + 8% =44% chance in diamonds. These events are roughly independent so the chance that both happen is obtained by multiplying 0.68 times 0.44.  I get 30%. Not hopeless but not great. Change the A to the K and it's pretty much hopeless.

Of course there are variations. Shorten dummy's diamonds to a doubleton and maybe you can ruff a diamond. That would be two tricks frmo dummy, the A and the ruff.  Here you have to assume the opponents don't lead a trump  And that there is no overruff.

Of course there are many variations, some produce ten ricks and some don't. The point of the example is that one trick from partner will often not be enough. Looking just at your hand, you have are hoping for six spade tricks, you have an outside A, and you can easily develop one trick. So that's 8, and it assumes, before seeing if partner fits the suit, that the spades run. You are apt to need a fair amount from dummy.

Of course double dummy play and what actually happens at the table can be two very different things. Still, you might need a full weeks supply of good fortune to bring in ten tricks here on hand where partner is unable to respond to 1 . In fact. if I open 1 and partner responds with a forcing NT I suppose I would make a game forcing jump shift to 3 . But I would hate to have my life depend on making either 4 or 5 . It's just that either of the alternatives, 3 or 2 over 1NT, seems unduly pessimistic.

[amre_man]

I understand there are pitfalls.  But it generally work for me so I am willing to take that chance.

What has gone wrong for me is a rare foray into slam by my partner with insufficient mp's or a poor fit.

[ian84]

Thank you Ken for going through the percentages and thus making a very strong case for 1  as the opening. I will try to do this in future. I do have a bridge book on percentages which I've yet to read. You make a compelling case for their usage.

[kenberg]

Thanks.

I think the things that I said above were not really "percentages", at least not in the sense that you would find in a bridge book on percentages. It was more "How much help would I need from partner to make 4 , and is a partner who can supply that much help likely to pass 1 ?" It's really (my opinion) not all that common for a hand to come down to exact percentage calculations, and when it does it is usually in the play rather than the bidding.

There was a recent hand where percentages, in the sense that your book is likely to address, arose. I was hesitant to bring it up but perhaps you have inspired me to do so.  One fact about probability: It is an area where it is relatively easy to say something that sounds right but isn't, so care is needed else it can backfire. I may put up the hand and give it a try. That is, I will try to say something that actually is right.