Re: S:JT H:KT63 D:A72 C:9764, ok, what happens next...?

Andrew wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:22 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 12:50 pm, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 28, 10:33 am, Histriadogsilver <andjelka.rich...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>> West   North   East   South
>>>>  ------      1H       p        2H ( constructive raise otherwise 1N
F1
>>>> with subsequent 2H rebid)
>>>>    p        2S!!      p         ?
>>>> The bid of 2S!! is showing a shortness somewhere. What do you do now?
>>>> A.) You ask with 2N since you are interested in knowing in which suit
>>>> the shortness is
>>>> B.) You deny the invitation with 3H since your hand has minimum
values
>>>> for the shown raise
>>>> C.) You just blast to game
>>>> I'll show you partner's hand later.
>>>> Boris
>>> I am glad I bid 2H instead of making partner guess by using a Bergen
>>> 3C. Now I ask for the shortness. If opener has a minor suit singleton,
>>> I have an obvious game bid. If opener has shortness in spades, I will
>>> sign off in 3H.
>>> The key to the hand is the short suit total (total of length in the
>>> partner****p's two shortest suits). If partner has a minor suit
>>> singleton, then the short suit total is 3. With a short suit total of
>>> 3, I will require only 20 working HCP to make game (of which I can
>>> provide 7 or 8 working HCP).
>>> If instead partner has a stiff spade, then the short suit total is
>>> probably 4 (since my doubleton spade is wasted and the partner****p's
>>> next shortest suit is probably 3). With a short suit total of 4, the
>>> partner****p will require an extra working king to make game. Since I
>>> have only 7 working HCP, opener will need approximately 16 HCP outside
>>> of spades and 16 HCP plus a stiff is a game bid, not an invite.
>>> Andrew
>> Intriguing notion, "short suit total", and new to me. Can you expand
>> -- e.g. the bidding rules, the origin of this idea, and the
>> justification for the stated thresholds? Google got me nothing so I'm
>> stuck.
>>
>> Charles
> 
> Andres Wirgren devised the idea, and then he and Mike Lawrence
> collaborated on a book to popularize it. My own experimentation
> suggests it is a valuable evaluation tool--far more valuable than
> LOTT. The article Boris posted explains the theory better than I can.
> The basic approach works like this. When a pair of hands has an 8-card
> trump fit:
> 
> 1. Calculate the sum of the length of the two shortest suits held by
> the partner****p. Examples:
> *  Opener is 5-4-3-1 and responder is 5-2-3-3. Short suit total is 3
> (2 +1).
> *  Opener is 5-4-3-1 and responder is 5-3-3-2. Short suit total is 4
> (3+1). (Responder's doubleton club is not counted because it is facing
> the singleton)
> *  Opener is 6-4-2-1 and responder is 3-4-3-3. Short suit total is 3
> (2+1). Opener holds both of the shortest holdings used in our count.
> 
> 2. Subtract the short-suit total from 13. That is what I call the
> "Trick basis"
> 
> 3. It will require 20 (+/- 1) working high card points to make the
> trick-basis. A working high card is one that contributes to taking a
> trick.
> 
> 4. Each additional trick will require approximately an additional 3
> working high card points.
> 
> 


I read the book -- I FOUGHT THE LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS -- and found the 
first half in which hey demolish Total Tricks to be well considered and 
useful.  However, the second half, which you refer to, has several flaws:

1:  If it often very difficult to calculate the number of points held by 
either side in a competitive auction.

2: In a non-competitive auction it is often difficult to figure out 
exactly how many cards partner has in a suit unless you are playing 
splinters;  at which point, I find that I am usually sufficiently adept 
at visualizing hands to start cue-bidding figure out if slam is a 
reasonable idea.

3:  Even in cases in which you can make reasonable assumotions -- 
partner opens a major, you play 5-card majors, so he can be placed with 
a doubleton -- mirror hands can provide major flaws in this evaluation 
-- as shown in the example above.

4:  The issue of whether a card is a working honor or not.  Stiff King 
may be a working honor opposite QJTx but not Jxxx

In sum, I find that this method is not particularly helpful once you 
have advanced past the point of relying solely on modified point count 
in evaluating the hand and have learned to place sample hands that match 
the bidding in your mind.  I suppose some people would consider that an 
advanced stage.  I consider it the beginning of intermediate.  It is, in 
sum, a fine evaluation method to use if you are playing Churchill, a 
system that does not usually work as well as it should, even in the 
hands of its originator, alas.

Bob