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

On Apr 29, 2:14 pm, Bob Lipton <boblip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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:

Everything you say below is a valid point.


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

Worse, its not the points, its the working points. Even if parter told
you for a fact that his spades are QJx, opposite you ATxx, you cant
know whether to count this as 7 or ten working points.


> 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.

Using standard methods, you are certainly correct. But perhaps this is
only an indication that we need more specific-shape-showing raises.


> 3:  Even in cases in which you can make reasonable assumptions --
> 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.

I don't count this as a deficiency of the method. This is an
advertisement for more methods to show specific shortness. For
example, Take this auction:

1NT-2D
3C-

Bergen recommends using it to show 4-card heart sup****t and a
doubleton club. I never liked this method in the past. I wanted to
show partner the location of my outside values rather than my
doubleton.  But If partner holds: Axx, KTxxx, xxx, xx, a 3C call is
just the ticket to tell him not to bid a light 4H game today.



> 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

Again, this comes back to methods. Perhaps it is better not to
splinter with a stiff king, if you want partner to evaluate his QJTx
favorably.


Andrew