[aguahombre]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-24, 18:25, said:

With x xxx AKxx A10xxx I would hope partner would rebid 3N not 3♦. I've already warned about ♥.

With that hand, I would hope partner would rebid 3C over 2S, having shown 11+ with five clubs. That happens to be what she has, and it would be up to opener to pass or move on depending on whether opener has better than 12.

[twoshy]

SteveMoe, on 2012-October-24, 18:25, said:

Thanks.
Many of my partners would interpret the 3♠ rebid as showing 5=6.

With x xxx AKxx A10xxx I would hope partner would rebid 3N not 3♦. I've already warned about ♥.

You've warned responder about the hearts... so he bids game without hearts covered? Sorry, that's even worse, you get to play 3NT with x xxx AKxx ATxxx opposite AQxx xx Qx KQxxx with a heart stop of xxx opposite xx.

Also, this obsession with stoppers or concentrated values looks like it'll completely cripple any slam auctions, combined with 1♣-2♣-2♠-3♣ as non forcing. Then, there are other ideas such as rebidding spades twice on a 4333 when you could legitimately have the blacks (is 1♣-2♣-3♠ not a splinter?) or rebidding 3NT on a slam suitable minimum with no heart stopper (despite having agreements that focus on stoppers)... why is it so hard to have a sensible auction after opening 1♣?

[twoshy]

To add, basically the impression I'm getting is that whatever the 4333 hand does after opening 1♣ is irrelevant; the important thing is that responder has ATxxxx in support and an AKxx side suit. Bleh.

[rogerclee]

I thought this was the expert forum, is there actually serious discussion about downgrading AKQx 9xx 9xx KQJ?

[Cyberyeti]

rogerclee, on 2012-October-25, 02:42, said:

I thought this was the expert forum, is there actually serious discussion about downgrading AKQx 9xx 9xx KQJ?

It's reasonable to discuss, do you really want to be in game opposite something very normal for a 3N raise like xx, AKxx, xxxx, Axx. I wouldn't downgrade, but I don't think it's silly to discuss it.

The honours are nice, touching honours are always good and I disagree that KQJ is not worth 6 points, would you rather have KQJ or AQx ? I think they're approximately the same, KQJ is better if partner has 4 or more, particularly if he has the 10, or xx(x), AQx is better if partner has A/Kx(x) because it wastes one less of partner's points for 3 tricks.

The 4333 shape is bad, the AKQx is huge, the 2 open suits are bad, I assess it as a pretty much normal 15 count. The only advantage of opening 1♣ is you might hear an inverted raise which will tell you that your ♣KQJ is big.

[rhm]

rogerclee, on 2012-October-25, 02:42, said:

I thought this was the expert forum, is there actually serious discussion about downgrading AKQx 9xx 9xx KQJ?

In my view it is good judgement to downgrade this hand.
However, if I would downgrade, I would always open 1♠, not 1♣, and the bidding would start 1♠-2♣ with good chances to avoid 3NT
But if I were playing a 14-16 notrump I might have the actual auction

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-25, 04:07, said:

It's reasonable to discuss, do you really want to be in game opposite something very normal for a 3N raise like xx, AKxx, xxxx, Axx. I wouldn't downgrade, but I don't think it's silly to discuss it.

The honours are nice, touching honours are always good and I disagree that KQJ is not worth 6 points, would you rather have KQJ or AQx ? I think they're approximately the same, KQJ is better if partner has 4 or more, particularly if he has the 10, or xx(x), AQx is better if partner has A/Kx(x) because it wastes one less of partner's points for 3 tricks.

The 4333 shape is bad, the AKQx is huge, the 2 open suits are bad, I assess it as a pretty much normal 15 count. The only advantage of opening 1♣ is you might hear an inverted raise which will tell you that your ♣KQJ is big.

You don't always end up in no trumps. KQJ is often worse than AQx if we are in 4♥ when partner has two small, for instance. AQx can be opposite JTx(x) as well.

I did a short sim (this hand opposite any 9-10, which is where the swings will occur) and 1NT was massacred. It came out slightly ahead with some racing luck when partner held a balanced 10 and we ended in no trumps, somewhat behind on 9 counts where we ended in no trumps, but was basically misere when we found a major suit fit. I'm pretty certain we would do better with AQx in this regard.

[aguahombre]

Well, Roger: I have at least been able to read the rationale of the ones who think it might be a downgrade situation. And now I am studying your rationale. "I am an expert; therefore, it is not a downgrade."

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-25, 05:11, said:

Well, Roger: I have at least been able to read the rationale of the ones who think it might be a downgrade situation. And now I am studying your rationale. "I am an expert; therefore, it is not a downgrade."

I find the quote to be very true. Most top UK players just don't downgrade, ever. I find their devotion to a method of hand evaluation devised several million years ago rather perplexing.

Having said that, maybe Roger thinks the downgrade is so obvious he can't believe it is being discussed.

[aguahombre]

I don't believe I would have downgraded this one, either --though maybe I should have. My comment was directed more toward an attitude.

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-25, 05:33, said:

I don't believe I would have downgraded this one, either --though maybe I should have. My comment was directed more toward an attitude.

I've upgraded your rating accordingly ...

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-25, 04:47, said:

You don't always end up in no trumps. KQJ is often worse than AQx if we are in 4♥ when partner has two small, for instance. AQx can be opposite JTx(x) as well.

I did a short sim (this hand opposite any 9-10, which is where the swings will occur) and 1NT was massacred. It came out slightly ahead with some racing luck when partner held a balanced 10 and we ended in no trumps, somewhat behind on 9 counts where we ended in no trumps, but was basically misere when we found a major suit fit. I'm pretty certain we would do better with AQx in this regard.

Well if you do a sim excluding all the 11s that don't invite opposite 11-14 of course you'll get that result. You also potentially exclude hands where the auction goes 1♣-1♥-1N and responder holding spades is not good enough to bid again, where 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ would have been the auction otherwise.

Also the AQx/KQJ situation is more complicated, even if partner has xx in one suit, maybe he has AKx opposite your xxx. AQx is 1.5 losers over the two suits, KQJ is always 1, but maybe you had a pitch from the other hand in spades.

[rogerclee]

I am dismissive of the downgraders because

1) This hand is especially poorly suited for double dummy simulation, I have all my values in two suits and no finesses to take. The defenders have a huge advantage in a double dummy simulation as opposed to in real life.

2) I am a strong believer in the intangible benefits to opening 1N when possible. As far as I know, virtually all top American experts agree with me to varying extents. They have been stated many times, I will not go into the details again.

3) To me, downgrading on this hand is very random. I am not opposed to downgrading 4333 15's, but this one seems absurd, we have concentrated honors in our 4 card suit and the 9's in both red suits are not worthless.

4) Maybe you find this unsatisfactory, but I have studied many hand records of world championship events or their equivalents. I have seen very few of these downgrades at this level and virtually none by the very best players, and certainly not on an above average 4333 15 count (or whatever the bottom end of their 1N range is). There is something to be said for simply emulating what the best players do, instead of thinking that your double dummy simulations and speculative theories on 4333 hands will give you an edge over the aforementioned world class players.

[PhilKing]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-25, 06:12, said:

Well if you do a sim excluding all the 11s that don't invite opposite 11-14 of course you'll get that result. You also potentially exclude hands where the auction goes 1♣-1♥-1N and responder holding spades is not good enough to bid again, where 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ would have been the auction otherwise.

Did a separate sim (not dd sim, which I hate) for those and bad 11s opposite this hand fared poorly.

Missing the 44 fit is not an issue after 1♣-1♦(hearts)-1♥-1nt(nf 4-4M) or 2♥4-5M weak.

[PhilKing]

rogerclee, on 2012-October-25, 06:46, said:

4) Maybe you find this unsatisfactory, but I have studied many hand records of world championship events or their equivalents. I have seen very few of these downgrades at this level and virtually none by the very best players, and certainly not on an above average 4333 15 count (or whatever the bottom end of their 1N range is). There is something to be said for simply emulating what the best players do, instead of thinking that your double dummy simulations and speculative theories on 4333 hands will give you an edge over the aforementioned world class players.

It's on my "to do" list to parse all the hands where one side played 1NT and the other played in three. I have all World Championship late round matches, Vanderbilt, Spingold, USBC, and Europeans since 2000 in searchable files, but I can only search for particular auctions, not for where the contract is different.

Obviously no player in these events has ever downgraded a hand, and the differences will usually be down to range, but the results may still prove illuminating.

[gnasher]

rogerclee, on 2012-October-25, 06:46, said:

4) Maybe you find this unsatisfactory, but I have studied many hand records of world championship events or their equivalents. I have seen very few of these downgrades at this level and virtually none by the very best players, and certainly not on an above average 4333 15 count (or whatever the bottom end of their 1N range is). There is something to be said for simply emulating what the best players do, instead of thinking that your double dummy simulations and speculative theories on 4333 hands will give you an edge over the aforementioned world class players.

Yes, but we should also consider the differences between the best players and the rest of us. My impression (not backed by any analysis) is that thin games are more likely to make in a world-class game than at lower levels. Hence what is right for them may not be right for us. If I had Rodwell playing he hands for me, I'd bid up, even if I had Fantoni on lead.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-25, 06:57, said:

Did a separate sim (not dd sim, which I hate) for those and bad 11s opposite this hand fared poorly.

Missing the 44 fit is not an issue after 1♣-1♦(hearts)-1♥-1nt(nf 4-4M) or 2♥4-5M weak.

Yes it's methods dependent, transfer responses will fare better on this hand type, being a weak no trump 4 card club man I haven't really got into them and am only now studying the version Fantunes use.

I wouldn't invite with an average 11, knowing partner would have upgraded a really good 14, but not sure how normal that is.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-October-25, 07:36, said:

Yes, but we should also consider the differences between the best players and the rest of us. My impression (not backed by any analysis) is that thin games are more likely to make in a world-class game than at lower levels. Hence what is right for them may not be right for us. If I had Rodwell playing he hands for me, I'd bid up, even if I had Fantoni on lead.

I have my doubts that this is true in general.
What I rather believe is that at the world-class level players have better judgement, which hands are more likely to provide chances and where the defense might be tough even though the combined assets may not add up for game.
I doubt that this hand will belong in this category.

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

WHen you decide to upgrade or downgrade, it isn't so much a question of judgement as a question of range. If you think a 15-17 range means that you never open a 14 count, its consistent to downgrade 15 counts which are worse than the fourteen counts that you arent opening. I think most people have their range such that it includes essentially all 15 counts, and a certain number of 14 counts. If you are opening 1N on hands like AKxx AKxx xxx xx then I do not think that it is sensible to downgrade this hand.

[nigel_k]

rogerclee, on 2012-October-25, 06:46, said:

I am dismissive of the downgraders because

1) This hand is especially poorly suited for double dummy simulation, I have all my values in two suits and no finesses to take. The defenders have a huge advantage in a double dummy simulation as opposed to in real life.

2) I am a strong believer in the intangible benefits to opening 1N when possible. As far as I know, virtually all top American experts agree with me to varying extents. They have been stated many times, I will not go into the details again.

3) To me, downgrading on this hand is very random. I am not opposed to downgrading 4333 15's, but this one seems absurd, we have concentrated honors in our 4 card suit and the 9's in both red suits are not worthless.

4) Maybe you find this unsatisfactory, but I have studied many hand records of world championship events or their equivalents. I have seen very few of these downgrades at this level and virtually none by the very best players, and certainly not on an above average 4333 15 count (or whatever the bottom end of their 1N range is). There is something to be said for simply emulating what the best players do, instead of thinking that your double dummy simulations and speculative theories on 4333 hands will give you an edge over the aforementioned world class players.

I think it's close but would not downgrade the hand because I like the AKQx. However I find these arguments highly unconvincing.

1. Irrelevant, at least as a reason for being dismissive of the downgraders who didn't use a sim. Also, it's not clear why you think the defenders have a big advantage double dummy on this hand compared to others. They are unlikely to give you a trick on the lead in real life, as they quite often do other times after a 1NT opening.

2. This is an argument for a wider NT range, but has nothing to do with determining the true value of this hand. If playing a 14-17 NT, the hand qualifies obviously.

3. So KQJ tight is a plus because it's concentrated honours and 9xx is a more than negligible improvement over 432? I don't agree. Everything except the AKQx is horrible.

4. There is a massive number of things that have been popular among the best players at some point, but are not any more. The 'emulating the best players' argument would lead to everyone switching to Blue Club. We need to keep thinking for ourselves, even if only a small fraction of what we come up with is actually an improvement.