[Vampyr]

nekthen, on 2016-November-05, 08:29, said:

First seriously recommend Jacoby 2N, I play it as at least a good raise to 3,

Calling this Jacoby can only sow confusion.

[Caitlynne]

I don't know about ACOL, but I can answer this in 2/1 game force.

I would bid 2C. 2NT (Jacoby forcing raise) is inferior since that ASKS about shortness in partner's hand AND fails to communicate that your hand has a good support accompanied by a strong suit that may serve as a source of tricks.

The plan is to support spades next. If partner rebids 2D or 2H, your hand improves (because you now have reason to believe that red Queen is working) and a jump to 3S is best to emphasize the strength of the spade fit.

[msjennifer]

With due respect to Helene t,I wish to point out that there are 7 (seven) losers in the 3442 hand given by her,Any SST or LST is made only if ones hand has 6 (six) losers.Suppose partner produces xxx,KJxx,Kxx,xxx will he not respond 2 Hearts? Or is he supposed to bid 1NT to show a balanced hand.!!!Your side can't score more than 8 or sometimes 9 tricks ! That your opponent lady smilingly and politely ignored your advice was fair enough.

[Vampyr]

msjennifer, on 2016-November-06, 00:05, said:

With due respect to Helene t,I wish to point out that there are 7 (seven) losers in the 3442 hand given by her,Any SST or LST is made only if ones hand has 6 (six) losers.Suppose partner produces xxx,KJxx,Kxx,xxx will he not respond 2 Hearts? Or is he supposed to bid 1NT to show a balanced hand.!!!Your side can't score more than 8 tricks ! That your opponent lady smilingly and politely ignored your advice was fair enough.

Helene's example was not an exercise in counting tricks. Sure, partner could turn up with a balanced or ill-fitting minimum, but the given hand is still worth a game try.

[PhilG007]

661_Pete, on 2016-November-04, 06:23, said:

Very simple question: what bid?

---

The reason I ask is, what I thought was the 'correct' bid by me, earned me a comprehensive ear-bashing - not by partner, but by one of my opponents who obviously knew more than I do. I'm interested to know who was right.

A simple forcing response of 2♣is the best way to deal with this hand. As yet the final destination is unclear and you need further
information. The only certain thing here is the final contract will be in spades (!)

[Zelandakh]

msjennifer, on 2016-November-06, 00:05, said:

With due respect to Helene t,I wish to point out that there are 7 (seven) losers in the 3442 hand given by her,Any SST or LST is made only if ones hand has 6 (six) losers.Suppose partner produces xxx,KJxx,Kxx,xxx will he not respond 2 Hearts? Or is he supposed to bid 1NT to show a balanced hand.!!!Your side can't score more than 8 or sometimes 9 tricks ! That your opponent lady smilingly and politely ignored your advice was fair enough.

Let's count them...

helene_t, on 2016-November-05, 05:11, said:

Axx - 2 losers
AQxx - 1 loser
Axxx - 2 losers
Ax - 1 loser

2+1+2+1 = ? Seven?!?? Quite aside from your being flat out wrong, you miss the point Helene was making that the MLTC is clearly much more accurate:

Axx - 1.5 losers
AQXX - 1 loser
Axxx - 1.5 losers
Ax - 1 loser

5 losers is a far more sensible evaluation of this hand.

As has been pointed out many times, the MLTC is equivalent to a point count using a 3/2/1 (or 4.5/3/1.5) base with 6/3/1 (9/4.5/1.5) points for shortages and Qx or singleton K/Q counted as zero. The original LTC on the other hand is like using Milton but counting aces and queens (except Qx/Q) as kings (3 points) (and still ignoring K bare) and then adding shortage points as 9/6/3. It should be obvious to anyone but the most inexperienced beginner that this is pretty silly. The MLTC is ok but less flexible and (arguably) less accurate than a properly tuned point count method, notwithstanding that some BBFers are supporters of it. Noone with any sense supports the original LTC as an accurate evaluation method. Its benefit comes from simplicity but it is only right that users understand the limitations of the method and how to improve it in cases such as the one Helene presented.

[661_Pete]

Jacoby sounds fairly cool - I'm not familiar with it but it looks worth reading up and maybe adding to my card on BBO (not at U3A - we don't really 'do' CCs there...).

At present I play a straight ACOL 2NT reply meaning 11-12 balanced.

The downside is that I don't like too many 'gadgets', not even on BBO. When I started here I put a lot on my profile, then I took most of them off and just replaced them with "etc..." . Trouble is, (a) lots of gadgets, especially when partner has to scroll down to read them all, lead to innumerable question-and-answer sessions when you join a pick-up table, and (b) being the player of somewhat 'advanced years' that I am, I forget them during play.... .

Also my learning curve is not really up to much. I prefer to play what I can, and avoid what I can't ....

[StevenG]

661_Pete, on 2016-November-07, 06:02, said:

At present I play a straight ACOL 2NT reply meaning 11-12 balanced.

Don't! That is the single worst bid in traditional Acol. It eats space and often leaves partner with nowhere to go. If you can bid a four-card suit without lying, bid it. If you are 3433 and partner opens 1♠, bid 2♣. The only time to consider bidding 2NT is if partner opens a minor and your only four-card suit is that minor.

[Jinksy]

msjennifer, on 2016-November-06, 00:05, said:

With due respect to Helene t,I wish to point out that there are 7 (seven) losers in the 3442 hand given by her,Any SST or LST is made only if ones hand has 6 (six) losers.Suppose partner produces xxx,KJxx,Kxx,xxx will he not respond 2 Hearts? Or is he supposed to bid 1NT to show a balanced hand.!!!Your side can't score more than 8 or sometimes 9 tricks ! That your opponent lady smilingly and politely ignored your advice was fair enough.

Putting the two hands in the same post:

xxx
KJxx
Kxx
xxx

Axx
AQxx
Axxx
Ax

On top of everything others have said, in standard Acol with only 4 cards in their major, S would normally rebid 2N, and N, with 4 card support but relatively soft values, a minimum and a pancake, would probably pass. On a red-suit lead you can play for an overtrick, otherwise you can claim your 8 tricks off the top.

So well bid, Helen and her hypothetical partner...