[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Jan 22 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

This is a 4 loser hand, since if AKxx is only one loser surely AKTxxx is no losers. That partner has promised at least three clubs (which does not look valuable to him as yet) further promises no losers in clubs.

AKTxxx is, at best, half a loser, and that's a stretch (it would be 1/2 loser if the T were the J). If you had a known ten card fit, you could deduct a loser - but you don't, you have a known nine card fit.

If you have nine clubs, there are four out. Who says they don't break 4-0, offside? Now you have two losers in the suit.

Nope, this six card suit has one loser.

[jtfanclub]

Who's to say they won't break 4-0 onside, partner will have the jack, and....

Sorry for going off subject.

When going with losing trick count, AKxx is considered one loser. In fact, AQTx is considered one loser using basic counting. But who's to say that you don't have KJ97 to your left? That's 3 losers.

You can calculate the odds, or I can, but AKTxxx across an unknown 3 cards is about 2/3 likely to have no losers. That's good enough to call no losers to me, particularly compared to AQTx.

Quote

3♣ with :
♠xxx
♥Qxx
♦QJx
♣Qxx or some other similar minimum

I can't see why N can't pass 3♣. With hand 3, 4♣would usually go down.

You're working hard to make every point in partner's hand useless. Even so, with as little as the 9 of spades, you've got a decent shot at 4♣.

If I had,

♠ AKxx
♥ x
♦ Jxxx
♣ AKQx or AKJT

I would open 1♣, rebid 2♠, and pass 3♣. I don't like my odds in

3NT with
♠xxx
♥KJx
♦Kxx
♣♣xxxx

or

5♣ with
♠Qxx
♥Axx
♦xxxx
♣Qxx

Oh well, I've beaten this horse to death. If you guys think think that 2♠ fully described the strength of this hand, so be it.