[kenberg]

I will first give you one hand (my hand) so you can think about it if you wish. Then I'll give you the two hands and ask if you think this is error (whose?) or bad luck. The circumstances: I have just come in to an acbl tourney game as a sub, this is the first hand I have played, partner's profile says expert.

Scoring: IMP

---

I'm dealer, red against white. The beginning of the auction:
Pass (1H) 2C (2S)
3C

My thinking was fairly simple minded: If partner has a vul 2C bid, I have a raise to 3C.

The auction continued

Pass (1H) 2C (2S)
3C (4S) 5C pass
pass X all pass


Here are the two hands:

Scoring: IMP

---

Off 500, it could have been 800 (W needs to cash his spade ace before playing the fourth round of hearts, E then ruffing with the ten). So 3C could have been beaten a trick.

Further, 4S can be beaten although it wasn't always.

What are your thoughts on the bidding?

[rogerclee]

3♣ normal (and this is closer to a maximum than a minimum, but not particularly either), 5♣ silly.

North should have figured his hearts were a liability on the auction. I would not even have taken this action at equal vulnerability, but I would bid 5♣ at favorable.

[han]

3C normal, not the right colors for 5C. It was a little unlucky though, the hands fit very badly and there really wasn't any way to know this.

[han]

I didn't look carefully at the auction, the 1H opening makes the north hand worse than I thought it was.

[jdonn]

You took the low road if anything. Partner's bid was bad.

[pclayton]

With short majors, and this nice playing strength, I think 3♣ is an underbid. I prefer 4♣ even at r/w. I would never characterize 3♣ as 'bad' however.

5♣ looks obvious, but a deeper examination is that its a poor call. He has a dead ♠K and the heart length is a real problem. And we are red on white.

[kenberg]

Thanks. I thought of my own three card heart holding as something of a downer but still I have clubs, values and a stiff so 3C seemed right.

Perhaps of note: We have ten clubs, they have ten spades. We can take eight tricks in clubs, they can take nine in spades, that's the limit and requires no great defensive ability to hold it to that. One of the defensive tricks in a club contract arrives because of the lucky location of the ten of clubs but otherwise there seems to be nothing special. So LOTT is more than a bit off. Nothing works all the time of course.

[gwnn]

I think you shouldn't use the LOTT above the 3 level, at least that's what Woolsey wrote in his book.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on Oct 12 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

I think you shouldn't use the LOTT above the 3 level, at least that's what Woolsey wrote in his book.

I had not seen that, or maybe just don't remember it. Seems right to me.

[EricK]

I would have bid 3♦ on the second round, but I'm fine with 3♣.

Partner doesn't have the right hand to be sacrificing red v white.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 3C looks normal, if one has agreed to play fit non jumps,
3D is fine, but random pickup, means you should play it
safe, so 3C it is.
#2 2C looks normal
#3 given the vulnerability 5C is sick, since you dont bid 5C
with the expection to make, hence you bid 5C as a sacrifice,
but a sacrifice red vs. green is certainly not the most brilliant
idea.

From #3 followes, it was an error, and the error was bidding 5C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

kenberg, on Oct 12 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

<snip>
So LOTT is more than a bit off. Nothing works all the time of course.

The LOTT becomes unstable with mega fits.

Unstable means, that on average, it still holds, but the variance is fairly high.
In the given situation, you have 20 total tricks, mega fits start with 21-22
total tricks, this statement is similar to gwnn's comment, but more important,
using the LOTT for 5 level decision is dangerous.

Anyway using an LOTT based analysis:
Assuming we have 17-18 total tricks, if we make 5C (not a realistic
assumption), they make only 6-7 tricks => If we double 4S, we will
on average earn more money, hence defending 4S is better, you may
or may not double.

If they make 4S (a sensible assumption), we only make 7-8 tricks in clubs
=> hence a double of 5C is clearly in the money for them, hence defendng
4S is much more cheaper for us.

So in the end the LOTT tells you not to bid 5C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rogerclee]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 13 2008, 01:14 AM, said:

So in the end the LOTT tells you not to bid 5C.

But look at how much shorter it is to just think about bridge!

[han]

Well, the analisys was also flawed. For one thing, we aren't doubling 4S. For another, we don't know that there are 17-18 total tricks, and there is no way to know.

[P_Marlowe]

han, on Oct 13 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

Well, the analisys was also flawed. For one thing, we aren't doubling 4S. For another, we don't know that there are 17-18 total tricks, and there is no way to know.

First of all, the intention was only to show, that the
LOTT does not recommend bidding 5C, so hiding
behind the LOTT is no use.

Regarding the flawed analysis:

I did not suggest to double 4S, only if you assume 5C
makes, the LOTT tells you, that you may consider to
double 4S.
And assuming that 5C is making, is taking a very rosy
view, to put it mildly

Regarding the 17-18 total tricks:
The 5C bidder knowes, that the partnership has 9 trumps,
they will bid 4S only with an 8 card fit, which will quite
often be a 9 card fit, that makes it 17-18.

The king of spades is a neg. factor, which reduces the
number of total tricks, so even with greater fits, the number
of total tricks will be lower than the number you get adding
the best fits of both sides, so taking 17-18 as a basis should
for your argumentation should not be too far away off from
the truth.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

rogerclee, on Oct 13 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 13 2008, 01:14 AM, said:

So in the end the LOTT tells you not to bid 5C.

But look at how much shorter it is to just think about bridge!

I agree for sure.

I just wanted to point out, that the LOTT does not
suggest bidding 5C, to counter any attempt to discredit
the LOTT.

The LOTT works fine, as long as you dont stop thinking.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

I was not sure I should even mention LOTT. I did not mean to suggest that LOTT would lead anyone to bid 5C. I simply was mulling over the fact that with twenty total trump there are seventeen total tricks and thought I would mention it for what it is worth.

The general comment that thinking is better than blindly following laws is of course correct. The suggestion that LOTT becomes unstable with megafits and the suggestion that it may not be a great tool above the three level are observations a person might factor in when considering how and whether to apply LOTT.

The LOTT has been the subject of much discussion on the Forum and I was not really trying to start a rerun.

The hand is of an elementary sort involving no particular conventions (unless 3D instead of 3C would have been a fit showing jump but even with regular partners I do not play that to be the case). It worked out badly so I was wondering about what folks thought, and it seemed suitable for B/I.