[whereagles]

Last night I held a hand which shows some of the difficulties of using "Fought The Law" methods at table.

Matchpoints, none vuln, playing 2/1 you hold:

♠ Qxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Kxx
♣ Q98x

Pard opens 1♣ and you bid a 7-10 1NT. LHO butts-in with 2♠, which gets passed round to you. You decide to compete with double (max hand, suggests penalty) and pard, for some strange reason, comes up with a 3♦ bid. Well, at least that marks his 4♦5♣ shape. You wonder what to do when RHO "rescues" you with a 3♠ bid and it's decision time. The auction so far was

Pard RHO you LHO
1♣...pass..1NT..2♠
pass.pass..dbl..pass
3♦.....3♠....??

Pard's bidding was weird, but he did say just about everything about his hand, so obviously you're the one who has to act. These particular opps are aggressive, so not all in the field will find the 2♠ overcall or the 3♠ raise. You pretty much have to double or bid 4♣. With such a defensive hand, the obvious choice is double.

But then I started wondering. "I don't think we can set them more than 1, so I seem to be fixed for a bottom unless I can make 4♣. Can I expect to make that? I got 10 hcp, and our side's short suit total (SST) is 4, so, if pard can cooperate with 12-13 working points (WP) we might be able to take 10 tricks. It is not unreasonable that he has those 12-13 WPs and I seem to be fixed anyway, so I might as well try 4♣."

And, against my better judgement, I bid 4♣. The hands turned out to be:

Scoring: MP

West plays 4♣

---

As you can see, pard had just about the best hand I could hope for and it STILL depends on the heart ace being onside. It was not to be. Opps cashed 2 spades and later came to two more hearts, the ace being offside. Not good, as -300 was available in 3♠ X (opps have mirrored shapes, but -100 would be about par).

So what happened here? Well, it turned out that 5 of my "working points" (♠Q, ♥K) were actually not working! We had 20 WPs and we came to 9 tricks, exactly as predicted by the FTL method, so the theoretical expectancy is completely fine. But I was unable to compute the expectancy at table. Sure, one could argue that my major suit honors should be discounted. But what if pard has, say, the ♠K or ♥Q? Well, one just doesn't know what the WP are.

The bottom line is while FTL is indeed quite precise in theory, in practice it is often too difficult to evaluate the WP expectancy. That is a serious drawback of the method. I'll keep experimenting, but right now FTL seems more useful to evaluate stuff after a splinter or fit bid than in a close competitive situation.

[Miron]

I think you misevaluated the hand. You have SST of 4 (maybe 3). Working points: partner has about about 12 for his bidding. You have max 8 (don't tell me you counted ♠Q after this bidding). That is 3♣ making. The opps have SST of 4 as well, and about max 18 WP, probably less. So the double should be clear choice.

[whereagles]

Well, one has to be careful here. WPs don't add up to 40 like regular ones. I do agree the spade queen was overvalued. But the point is it's hard to know if to add it up or not.

[han]

While I haven't read the book (ok, turns out I have), I can't imagine that a queen in their fit counts as working points.

[inquiry]

One hand would never show why any evaluation method "sucks".

But your example hardly is an exampe of failure.

You have 8 working points, your partner has 13 (looking at his hand). If your partner had 6C and 4D, he would try 2NT over your double to place emphasis on clubs, so it is reasonable to expect him to be 4-5 in the minors. This gives you an SST of 4. 13 tricks - SST of 4 = 9 tricks. 21 hcp, suggest no adjustments so FTL suggest 3C is your limit.

You took a MP gamble, it didn't work. Don't blame the evaluation method, it clearly shows 4C was an overbid.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Jul 11 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

Don't blame the evaluation method, it clearly shows 4C was an overbid.

Are you having difficulties in reading, Ben? I said the method works FINE. It is the difficulties in applying it that make it hard to use. Besides, I already agreed counting the ♠Q was unwarrented optimism.

[1eyedjack]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

These particular opps are aggressive, so not all in the field will find the 2♠ overcall or the 3♠ raise. You pretty much have to double or bid 4♣.

I just have a bit of a problem with the apparent connection between these sentences. Is the second sentence supposed to derive from the first? If so, I am missing the logical connection.

[SoTired]

1eyedjack, on Jul 11 2006, 07:09 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

These particular opps are aggressive, so not all in the field will find the 2♠ overcall or the 3♠ raise. You pretty much have to double or bid 4♣.

I just have a bit of a problem with the apparent connection between these sentences. Is the second sentence supposed to derive from the first? If so, I am missing the logical connection.

Yes - Me 2... Seems just from the "aggressive" comment that the dbl action seems indicated without even evaluating the hand.

[whereagles]

1eyedjack, on Jul 11 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

These particular opps are aggressive, so not all in the field will find the 2♠ overcall or the 3♠ raise. You pretty much have to double or bid 4♣.

I just have a bit of a problem with the apparent connection between these sentences. Is the second sentence supposed to derive from the first? If so, I am missing the logical connection.

Well, an hcp count tells us it's our hand. I expect most of the field to be playing 3♣ or 1NT, making anything from 90 to 150. These opps took 1NT/3♣ out of the picture, so, unless we double or bid 4♣, we're bound to have a bad score. Some action is therefore necessary.

Is it clear now?

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 11 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

These particular opps are aggressive, so not all in the field will find the 2♠ overcall or the 3♠ raise. You pretty much have to double or bid 4♣.

I just have a bit of a problem with the apparent connection between these sentences. Is the second sentence supposed to derive from the first? If so, I am missing the logical connection.

Well, an hcp count tells us it's our hand. I expect most of the field to be playing 3♣ or 1NT, making anything from 90 to 150. These opps took 1NT/3♣ out of the picture, so, unless we double or bid 4♣, we're bound to have a bad score. Some action is therefore necessary.

Is it clear now?

This assumes, that 3C is makeing.
Given the weirdness of partners
bidding, are you sure about that?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

With 22-24 hcp and a 9 card fit, it's good odds 3♣ makes.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 06:58 AM, said:

inquiry, on Jul 11 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

Don't blame the evaluation method, it clearly shows 4C was an overbid.

Are you having difficulties in reading, Ben? I said the method works FINE. It is the difficulties in applying it that make it hard to use. Besides, I already agreed counting the ♠Q was unwarrented optimism.

As for you "♠Queen might be unwarrented optimism" don't you think I was typing my reply when you posted your second post in this thread where you said this? I was. In your original post you counted your hand as 10 hcp.

As for saying the method works "fine" you said it, and I quote, "it sucks". Using FTL, LOTT, or HCP, I would have passed 3♠. I expect partner to double 3♠ with his hand, and you would collect your +300 that you claim was available (I assume 1♥, 2♣ and 3♦ from the mirror comment, but the felow overcalling 2♠ on a four card suit seems very odd to me.

But since you say I can't read, let me say something about what I did read in your post, for which I simply can not understand your bridge logic... "Pard's bidding was weird, but he did say just about everything about his hand, so obviously you're the one who has to act. " Let's look at the auction. You bid 1NT, limiting YOUR hand both with regards to shape and values. You further limited your hand with your double which showed "max hand, suggests penalty." Of all the hands at the table, YOURS is the best described. Thus, who has said "everything" about their hand, you or your partner? Why you of course. We all know you have 10 hcp, 3 spades, and less than 4 hearts. Only your partner knows if he has two or three spades or one or a void. Only your partner knows if it is best to pass the hand out, defend doubled or try 4♣. Note, if you COULD make 4♣ (heart king onside), you may get 3♠ one more (not likely in this case as you are entitled to one heart trick if you don't open the suit). The fact, it is not your partner whose "bidding was weird" but rather yours.

As far as evaluation, with the spade bidder behind you, it is not only the spade queen you should question. The heart king on this auction draws some questions too. What is this guy bidding on behind you in the sandwich position? If the opponents happen to have the heart ace, where do you think it will be? I would still count it, but on a close decision, I would consider this king less than its full value.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Jul 11 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

I simply can not understand your bridge logic... "Pard's bidding was weird, but he did say just about everything about his hand, so obviously you're the one who has to act. " Let's look at the auction. You bid 1NT, limiting YOUR hand both with regards to shape and values. You further limited your hand with your double which showed "max hand, suggests penalty." Of all the hands at the table, YOURS is the best described. Thus, who has said "everything" about their hand, you or your partner? Why you of course. We all know you have 10 hcp, 3 spades, and less than 4 hearts. Only your partner knows if he has two or three spades or one or a void. Only your partner knows if it is best to pass the hand out, defend doubled or try 4♣. Note, if you COULD make 4♣ (heart king onside), you may get 3♠ one more (not likely in this case as you are entitled to one heart trick if you don't open the suit). The fact, it is not your partner whose "bidding was weird" but rather yours.

Are we going through this again? Both players have a responsibility to take decisions when the situation calls for it. I really, really hate this culture of de-responsabilization that lives by the misguided lore of "I've shown my hand, so it's pard's problem".

Technically speaking, if pass to 3♠ were forcing (which I believe it should, at least in matchpoints), I'd pass with offensive spade holdings such as Axx or Jxx or xxx and double with defensive holdings like Qxx or Kxx. I don't think that passing with defensive holdings and consequently dumpin on pard decisions that you can take is a winner in the long run. Besides, doubling is ALSO a descriptive bid: it shows the last feature of your hand pard is unaware of: wasted spade honors.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 08:31 AM, said:

inquiry, on Jul 11 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

I simply can not understand your bridge logic... "Pard's bidding was weird, but he did say just about everything about his hand, so obviously you're the one who has to act. " Let's look at the auction. You bid 1NT, limiting YOUR hand both with regards to shape and values.  You further limited your hand with your double which showed "max hand, suggests penalty." Of all the hands at the table, YOURS is the best described. Thus, who has said "everything" about their hand, you or your partner? Why you of course. We all know you have 10 hcp, 3 spades, and less than 4 hearts. Only your partner knows if he has two or three spades or one or a void. Only your partner knows if it is best to pass the hand out, defend doubled or try 4♣. Note, if you COULD make 4♣ (heart king onside), you may get 3♠ one more (not likely in this case as you are entitled to one heart trick if you don't open the suit). The fact, it is not your partner whose "bidding was weird" but rather yours.

Are we going through this again? Both players have a responsibility to take decisions when the situation calls for it. I really, really hate this culture of de-responsabilization that lives by the misguided lore of "I've shown my hand, so it's pard's problem".

Others on this forum have accused you of often "masterminding" auctions. I think this concept here, that you are in possession of information so that this is a situation that calls for "(you have the) responsibility to take decisions" is the reason you get these comments.

There are several "rules" in bridge. One is the partner who has best limited his hand with an accurate description is the "mate" and his partner is the "captain."

Your partner is in possession of all the information to make the best decision over 3♠, you are realatively in the dark. If partner is 3S-1H-4D-5C, he will double 3S and your will get very rich. If he is 2-2-4-5 with quick tricks (as he was) at matchponts he probalby will double. Here he knows they are in an 8 card spade fit, and he may have only an 8 card diamond fit or a 9 card club. A lawful analysis shows if 4C makes, 3S is down two. If he is 1-3-4-5, he will bid on. He knows they have a 9 card fit and again, you have an 8 card diamond or 9 card club fit (you might have a nine-card diamnod fit if you have five of those).

You partner can also apply FTL if you give him a chance. He knows about his SST of 4, he knows about your roughly 10 hcp, some might be wasted. If he lacks a heart honor he will be worried about any points you have in either major. It is HE not YOU who should decide. This is as ancient as the concept of who is captain of an auction. Your mutiny of bidding 4C in front of your partner took all of his responsibility (and judgement) away from him on an auction where you have describe everything there is to describe about your hand. I would not double again (3S), as the double of 2S already showed this hand. I would not 4C as it is up to partner to evalaute our various potentials. But then, I believe in letting the captain be the captain rather than "masterminding" the hand.

[kenberg]

Partner looks at his two doubletons and knows from your NT bid that the opponents have a double fit in the majors. Holding most all of his points in his shapely minors, and with reasonable certainty that you hold at least three clubs, and in fact four clubs unless you hold four diamonds, he decides to encourage further competition by calling 3D. With this encouragement, it's tough not to go on. It could have been right, but it wasn't.


If I understand you correctly, the hand takes 9 tricks in clubs and 7 tricks in spades which means the LOTT also is off by a trick on this hand, in fact maybe more than a trick since double fits suggest upward adjustments.

I often feel that many of these theories are far more usful in the post mortem, explaining what went wrong, than they are as guides when it counts. At any rate, they certainly are not the answer to all of our prayers.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 11 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

These particular opps are aggressive, so not all in the field will find the 2♠ overcall or the 3♠ raise. You pretty much have to double or bid 4♣.

I just have a bit of a problem with the apparent connection between these sentences. Is the second sentence supposed to derive from the first? If so, I am missing the logical connection.

Well, an hcp count tells us it's our hand. I expect most of the field to be playing 3♣ or 1NT, making anything from 90 to 150. These opps took 1NT/3♣ out of the picture, so, unless we double or bid 4♣, we're bound to have a bad score. Some action is therefore necessary.

Is it clear now?

Well, on this I can agree, some action is necessary at MP (at imps, that does not necessarily hold).

On this hand, however, you are in a poor position to make the decision what action is necessary. You partner knows you have a minor suit fit. He knows you have 10 hcp. He knows his sides hcp range much better than you. You are guessing it is 22-24, he can count his and add to you 10. So he will know if it is 20 (maybe he opened light), 21, 22, 23, 24, or lucky 25. Ok, maybe you might show max 1NT with double when holding 9 or 10, then he knows within a two point range (21-22, 22-23, etc), still better than you. But as I point out above, he also knows his shape, and thus their degree of fit. Something you can not know.

But, if with 22-24 points as you say, SOMETHING must be done, why not "trust" your partner to be at the table with you. Only if you were playing with a client who could not be expected to work out that if 3D (or 3C) was making, that passing 3S would be a bad MP score might you take action on your own here.

Quote

I said the method works FINE. It is the difficulties in applying it that make it hard to use.

You also said the above quote. To the contrary, I think it is an easy FTL decision here to pass, and an easy FTL to calculate. SST is clearly 4, working hcp are in the range of 20-21, 9 tricks is your limit. This can be calculated right at the table.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Jul 11 2006, 01:55 PM, said:

1.
Others on this forum have accused you of often "masterminding" auctions. I think this concept here, that you are in possession of information so that this is a situation that calls for "(you have the) responsibility to take decisions" is the reason you get these comments.

2.
There are several "rules" in bridge.

3.
One is the partner who has best limited his hand with an accurate description is the "mate" and his partner is the "captain."

4.
Your partner is in possession of all the information to make the best decision over 3♠, you are realatively in the dark. If partner is 3S-1H-4D-5C, he will double 3S and your will get very rich. If he is 2-2-4-5 with quick tricks (as he was) at matchponts he probalby will double.

5.
You partner can also apply FTL if you give him a chance. He knows about his SST of 4, he knows about your roughly 10 hcp, some might be wasted. If he lacks a heart honor he will be worried about any points you have in either major. It is HE not YOU who should decide. This is as ancient as the concept of who is captain of an auction. Your mutiny of bidding 4C in front of your partner took all of his responsibility (and judgement) away from him on an auction where you have describe everything there is to describe about your hand.

6.
I would not double again (3S), as  the double of 2S already showed this hand.

7.
I would not 4C as it is up to partner to evalaute our various potentials. But then, I believe in letting the captain be the captain rather than "masterminding" the hand.

8.
But, if with 22-24 points as you say, SOMETHING must be done, why not "trust" your partner to be at the table with you.

9.
I think it is an easy FTL decision here to pass, and an easy FTL to calculate. SST is clearly 4, working hcp are in the range of 20-21, 9 tricks is your limit. This can be calculated right at the table.

1. I read these comments simply as people sticking to their paradigms. I dismiss most of them because they don't add to the discussion.

2. You can make any rules you want, but there is only one rule that works all the time: think!

3. This is a principle that a.) is not as easy to apply as it seems and b.) does not hold strictly in several cases. This hand shows the shortcomings of blindly applying your beloved principle: both players HAVE to continue describing their hands to get a good score, despite being both limited. The principle of capitaincy has a range of validity and cannot thus be invoked randomly.

4. Not really. By that time pard had shown a 2245 or 1345 (a 3145 is fairy-tale stuff). I'm entitled to use that information. As passing and letting pard double on a 2-2 and bid on a 1-3, that's fine but I still prefer doubling myself to warn of possible trump tricks. As I said, passing is more of a Axx or xxx spade holding. By the way, let me clear up that the dbl of 2♠ doesn't absolutely promise a spade trick. I accept you disagree with me as to what holding pass/dbl shows, but I guess you will agree KJx is a clear double, no?

5. I agree I shouldn't have bid 4♣, but I believe I should have doubled because I have spade wastage. If I pass with ♠KJx just because "I've told my story", pard will bid 4♣ with a spade singleton and that would be dreadful. I think it would be quite irresponsible to pass with ♠KJx.

6. As I said, not quite. The spade holding need not be so defensive as Qxx. A later dbl shows a defensive holding. I'll give in that Qxx may be more offensive than it looks if pard has a singleton.

7. Taking decisions based on what pard showed (in this case a 54 minor) is not masterminding. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter of principle.

8. I believed I had enough information to bid 4♣. I try and take the pressure off pard whenever it's possible.

9. It is simple if I knew not to count the ♠Q, which I probably shouldn't. Note that if the ♥A were onside, I'd be prasing the FTL!!!! That is my issue with it.. some holdings are too obscure to know how many WPs to count there. The authors skillfully relegate to the post-mortem the question of "should one count a king as 3 WP or 0?" basically by saying "if the A is onside, it's even 4. Otherwise it's 0!" Well thankyouverymuch.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for more FTL hands.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

4. Not really. By that time pard had shown a 2245 or 1345 (a 3145 is fairy-tale stuff). I'm entitled to use that information. As passing and letting pard double on a 2-2 and bid on a 1-3, that's fine but I still prefer doubling myself to warn of possible trump tricks.

I wiill let this thread go... my last comment on it is here. The readers wondering about FTL and the logic of the situation can read your logic as you have posted it and what I think is accepted "dogma" on captain/mate issues.

But I will address this one last point. The fantasy that partner might be 3145. The overcaller DID have a four card suit, and if advancer under pressure raised to 3S on a three card suit, well, there you go. After all, an overcall in that position (sandwich after you have defined your hand so well with a natural 1NT) is more commonly a six card suit than a five. I ahve even seen 3S bid on strong two card support (Kx, Ax), but there is too many missing hearts for partner to be void in them. But if partner did have 3S, you have a lot of explaining to do.

[whereagles]

Huh.. well, I know these opps. They wouldn't bid 2♠ on a 4 carder, nor would raise on 2 cards, so I'm pretty sure they do have a fit. Even if you didn't know opps, table presence would tell you they're not joking (both bid in adequate tempo).

Shapes around the table were

.......2245 (pard)
5332........3532
.......3334 (you)

Cheers.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

Huh.. well, I know these opps. They wouldn't bid 2♠ on a 4 carder, nor would raise on 2 cards, so I'm pretty sure they do have a fit. Even if you didn't know opps, table presence would tell you they're not joking (both bid in adequate tempo).

Shapes around the table were

.......2245 (pard)
5332........3532
.......3334 (you)

Cheers.

Well, you told us they had mirrowed shape (first post, quote was: "Not good, as -300 was available in 3♠ X (opps have mirrored shapes)"

Now, mirror shape means identical. See Bridgeworld glossery for example. Or any enclyopedia of bridge. For them to have mirror shape, their hands have to be"

4S-4H-3D-2C each, since they can not be 5-5 in spades. What you meant was they had mirrored MINOR suit shape or nearly mirrored shape or some other quailfier. When I suggest it very odd the fellow overcalled on a four card suit in that seat (you did say they were wild), you didn't comment. So you can see how I assumed you meant what you said, as difficult as it was to believe.