[bd71]

Maybe not all that "interesting", but here's a board where I got a very bad result after my bid turned out to be very anti-field. Trying to figure out whether I'm off, or they all are...

---

[BunnyGo]

Well, at least wyman and I agree...always good when partners agree (right or wrong). Here's why I'd pass:

1) I've already described my hand. I have 4 spades, and not more than a full opener. I have 3 heart losers, 2 spade loses, and 2 clubs losers...so nothing more to say to partner. Yes, I have some ruffing values in diamonds, but that isn't going to establish tricks in a side suit.

2) Partner passed 2 spades. I trust partner to take the push to 3 if he thinks we should. Why should I when I've already described my hand, and partner could have:

Axxx, Qxx, Qxx, xxx

We could be setting 3 diamonds here, and have no hope of making 3 spades (probably not 2 either).

[quiddity]

BunnyGo, on 2011-August-24, 14:29, said:

2) Partner passed 2 spades. I trust partner to take the push to 3 if he thinks we should. Why should I when I've already described my hand, and partner could have:

Axxx, Qxx, Qxx, xxx

We could be setting 3 diamonds here, and have no hope of making 3 spades (probably not 2 either).

I would bid 3♠ but I know there's a significant chance that it could work out badly. I'm not sure of my answer either, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of good players decided to pass instead.

That aside, I think your construction is off-base. We're interested in the average hand with which partner will pass out 3♦ - you presented something that looks like the worst. My guess is that given the vulnerability, his diamond length and our spade honors, he will pass almost all hands with only 4 spades and perhaps half the hands with 5 spades (unless he has inv+ values).

[ggwhiz]

I try to send all close decisions to the pass out seat.

[Yu18772]

I pass because of vulnerability, A♦ and 3 ♥ loosers - basically my hand sucks
May be we are setting them and may be not, but it seems like they are pushing us into -200/-500 zone in MP...which is not a score I like.....

[jdeegan]

3♠. I would have bid 3♠ the round before, so I'm surely going to do it now. Your hand is worth 16 dummy points for spades. It's biggest flaw is its poor texture, so 2♠ is just barely acceptable imo. Nonetheless, I would have bid 3♠ earlier in most situations. Consider that given the opponents' bidding to the 3 level, your pard is much less likely to have wasted ♦ cards. You almost certainly cover all of his 3 diamond losers. Even if he only has 4 spades, you are probably OK. If he has five spades, and you don't get to 3♠, your side is screwed, and he won't bid it on a lot of hands. Your only losing case is if he has only four spades and no club fit.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2011-August-24, 15:35, said:

I try to send all close decisions to the pass out seat.

Yes. We already decided to only bid 2S on the previous round. Having done that, and I agree with it, we let pard make the final choice. Bidding 2, then bidding 3 all from the same side is rarely good; it also pisses off CHO.

[MrAce]

jdeegan, on 2011-August-24, 19:57, said:

I am a little surprised that I am the only respondant who applied the law of total trick analysis. It can be very useful on hands like this. It works out as follows:............

Above you suggested LOTT in another thread, for a decision at 5 level, which is not the most accurate level for LOTT.

jdeegan, on 2011-August-24, 21:11, said:

3♠. I would have bid 3♠ the round before, so I'm surely going to do it now. Your hand is worth 16 dummy points for spades. It's biggest flaw is its poor texture, so 2♠ is just barely acceptable imo. Nonetheless, I would have bid 3♠ earlier in most situations. Consider that given the opponents' bidding to the 3 level, your pard is much less likely to have wasted ♦ cards. You almost certainly cover all of his 3 diamond losers. Even if he only has 4 spades, you are probably OK. If he has five spades, and you don't get to 3♠, your side is screwed, and he won't bid it on a lot of hands. Your only losing case is if he has only four spades and no club fit.

And here you seem to toally ignore the LOTT m8

[jdeegan]

MrAce, on 2011-August-24, 22:03, said:

Above you suggested LOTT in another thread, for a decision at 5 level, which is not the most accurate level for LOTT.




And here you seem to toally ignore the LOTT m8

OK.
Base Case:
1. they very likely have 9 trumps, having taken the push
2. we have 8 or 9 trumps, and pard wont know whether or not his 5th spade is potential gold
3. we very well may have a secondary 5-3 club fit - or the 5-2 fit rails out 3-3 36% of the time.
4. No likelihood of negative factors - again they took the push
This comes to 18 total tricks much more often than not. With 18 total tricks. Well you do the math. Plus, my hand is so good that we will often make three spades even if there are only 17 tricks in the hand. Very few hands have only 16 tricks, esp. when I have 5-4-3-1 and they take the push.

[aguahombre]

Jdeegan, you are trying to figure everything out from one side of the table. Your partner will know whether she has five spades or not and probably would have already put it to them with 3S if so.

If you had chosen 3S on the previous round, some would have disagreed with that choice holding the stiff bullet and no spots suggesting it was not the time to upgrade 13 all the way to 16. You made your decision by bidding 2S and you do not get to decide differently and bid 3S, with no reason to change gears.

You want to believe the opponents have nine trumps and that is no guarantee; and for our side, partner will know by looking at her hand whether we have nine trumps.

[MrAce]

jdeegan, on 2011-August-24, 22:18, said:

OK.
Base Case:
1. they very likely have 9 trumps, having taken the push
2. we have 8 or 9 trumps, and pard wont know whether or not his 5th spade is potential gold
3. we very well may have a secondary 5-3 club fit - or the 5-2 fit rails out 3-3 36% of the time.
4. No likelihood of negative factors - again they took the push
This comes to 18 total tricks much more often than not. With 18 total tricks. Well you do the math. Plus, my hand is so good that we will often make three spades even if there are only 17 tricks in the hand. Very few hands have only 16 tricks, esp. when I have 5-4-3-1 and they take the push.

I am afraid it doesnt work this way. Your expectations, such as "IF pd has 5 card ♠...IF they have 9 card ♦...then we have 18 trumps so etc etc..." are extremely optimistic. And even with 18 trumps, when red vs white it is very close call. It favours bidding 3 over 3 slightly in the chart, but dont forget u will have 18 trumps only if everything you wished come true.

If you are using LOTT and when pd has 5, there is no such a thing called GOLD 5th card or silver 5th card. He knows u have 4 and he will bid 3♠ with 5 MOST of the time. At the top of this, u are not even sure if they have 9 card fit. You have at most 17 trumps when pd doesnt bid 3♠ and possible only 16 trumps. I am not even mentioning this is MP, when you use the chart of possible outcomes, u should consider the DOUBLED outcomes more probable than imp IMO.

I am not saying this hand should pass or bid 3♠, i was kinda surprised you did not even mention LOTT in a competitive auction for a " to bid or not to bid decision" at 3 level while you seemed to favour this method highly at 5 level competitive auction, thats all.

[JLOGIC]

Surprised by the answers, I would always bid 3S. I HAS STIFF!

[jdeegan]

I am not an LOTT fanatic. It's just one tool. To me everything points to 3♠. I would have bid it the first time for fear of missing a game.

[Yu18772]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-24, 23:29, said:

Surprised by the answers, I would always bid 3S. I HAS STIFF!

Your stiff is their A.........its not like you are holding KJxx, Axx,x, AJxxx.

[mike777]

Has no one...no one read "I fought the law"

[whereagles]

I have, and let myself be indoctrinated by the authors lol.

Anyway, 3♠. This is gambling that opps have their bids, which should place pard with something like a 4333 and 6-8 hcp. If they're all in the good suits, this might make. Else we're probably going down.

[helene_t]

mike777, on 2011-August-25, 00:50, said:

Has no one...no one read "I fought the law"

Great. Tell me how many working points partner has and how many clubs and hearts he has and I am happy to calculate the WP and SST.

Then we also need to know how likely opps are to double us if we have 8 tricks and how likely they are to take the push. OK that info we need also when applying the LOTT.

Anyway, if p has three diamonds then 3♠ is lawful and if he has four it is not.

[gwnn]

It looks like an easy 3S bid to me on account of our concentration and club length. The ace of diamonds is neutral, the rest of my hand wants to play spades.

[jdeegan]

helene_t, on 2011-August-25, 03:59, said:

Great. Tell me how many working points partner has and how many clubs and hearts he has and I am happy to calculate the WP and SST.

Then we also need to know how likely opps are to double us if we have 8 tricks and how likely they are to take the push. OK that info we need also when applying the LOTT.

Anyway, if p has three diamonds then 3♠ is lawful and if he has four it is not.

I agree. I fought the law is even better than LOTT. AND 3♠ is "lawful" unless the opps have bid 3♦ with only 8 trumps. In most duplicate bridge games with well-rated players your opponents will be predictable automatons. Nothing at stake but MASTERPOINTS, not much quality play. Might as well take advantage of it.

[gnasher]

If we're going to play 3♠, do we actually want the opponents to have a nine-card fit? I'd prefer dummy to have AQxx xxx xxxx xx than AQxx xxx xxx xxx.