[Little Kid]

peachy, on May 31 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

You just needed to be told that The Law has nothing to do with this hand.

My understanding was that a corrollary of the Law of Total Tricks is:
"Bid to a number of tricks equal to the number of trumps you and your partner hold (and no higher) in a competitive auction."

[rogerclee]

Little Kid, on May 31 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

peachy, on May 31 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

You just needed to be told that The Law has nothing to do with this hand.

My understanding was that a corrollary of the Law of Total Tricks is:
"Bid to a number of tricks equal to the number of trumps you and your partner hold (and no higher) in a competitive auction."

You are abusing this principle badly. The reasoning behind your "corollary" is to put pressure on your opponents when they haven't described their hand yet, and also to bid to the maximum level as a two-way shot (maybe it makes, if it doesnt maybe it's a good save against what they can make). In this situation you aren't really that worried about them bidding anymore, and you are bidding at least 3H, so you should just try to bid what you think you can make.

[Little Kid]

I absolutely agree with your reasoning but unless I am completely misinterpreting something, the Law of Total Tricks still suggests bidding 4♥ after the transfer sequence. I'm probably interpreting things too literally from the Wikipedia entry:

"The total number of tricks available on a deal is equal to the total number of trump cards both sides hold in their respective best suits."

Total tricks is defined as the sum of the number of tricks available to each side if they could choose trumps. As an example, if N-S between them hold 9 spades and E-W hold 8 clubs, the LoTT says that the total number of tricks available is 17 (9+8). Note the LoTT says nothing about how many tricks each side will make; this depends on the split of HCP as well as the number of trumps held - if, in the example, the side with 8 clubs held all the HCPs, they would make all 13 tricks with clubs as trumps - but if the other side could choose spades as trumps, they could well make 4 tricks (draw trumps and cross ruff) - note 13 + 4 still = 17. When the HCP are fairly evenly split between the two sides, the number of trumps held by each side is a close indicator of the tricks available to each side.
This method works on the assumption that for shapely hands, the combined length of the trump suit is more significant than points or HCP in deciding on the level of the final contract. It is of most value in competitive bidding situations where the HCP are divided roughly equally between the partnerships.
The "law" is said to be most accurate when the high card points are fairly evenly divided between the two sides and the bidding is competitive. Experts also apply adjustment factors to improve accuracy.

[cherdanno]

We are deciding between bidding 3H and 4H. Opponent's wont bid over either bid. Hence it doesn't matter how many tricks the opponents will make. Hence the law is useless for our decisions. QED.

[gwnn]

hey I can see hidden text, I found a magic angle on my laptop

[nige1]

Little Kid, on May 29 2010, 09:23 PM, said:

Scoring: XIMP

1NT-(Pass)-?What is your bid now? Texas or Transfer?

---

IMO Texas = 10, Transfer = 6.

[jdeegan]

Transfer = 100% for me. Why try to steal with Texas when we are vul. Might easily go for -200 or more against their partscore. 7-2-2-2 opposite a balanced hand is yuck. I will, probably, compete to 3♥ based on the law since pard rates to have 2 or 3 ♥. Wish I could transfer to 3♥ and then pass.

On the actual hand you have an easy 3♥ over 3♦. You need more HCP to bid game to make when you don't have any singletons or voids between the two hands.

[MarkDean]

I would absolutely Texas to start with. I would basically always bid game with a seven card suit opposite a strong nt. Either I think it is likely to make, or if my hand is truly atrocious, it could be a good sac.

[gwnn]

gwnn, on Jun 1 2010, 12:48 AM, said:

hey I can see hidden text, I found a magic angle on my laptop

oh it wasn't hidden text after all, just white font. never mind, sorry about this

[whereagles]

Dead easy 4♥. It's impossible to check whether hands fit, so you might as well bid it anyway.

Pard's stop doesn't change my mind, as many of his holdings are helpful. Qxx is bad, but the rest are ok.

[hanp]

When cherdano uses QED, the argument is over.

[gwnn]

Little Kid, on Jun 1 2010, 12:45 AM, said:

I absolutely agree with your reasoning but unless I am completely misinterpreting something, the Law of Total Tricks still suggests bidding 4♥ after the transfer sequence.

I believe you meant to say:

I absolutely agree with your reasoning but I will just disregard it and repeat my point.

[P_Marlowe]

Little Kid, on May 31 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

peachy, on May 31 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

You just needed to be told that The Law has nothing to do with this hand.

My understanding was that a corrollary of the Law of Total Tricks is:
"Bid to a number of tricks equal to the number of trumps you and your partner hold (and no higher) in a competitive auction."

I would not call this a corrollary.

Basically this is just a way how to use the law on the table, since quite
often you have no idea how many trumps the opponents have, but quite
often you have a good knowledge abut your combined trump holding.
And since, if we have a 9 card fit, they will also have a 8 card fit. this
suggestion how to apply the law in reality works quite well most of the
time.

But the "law" does not say, that you will make the contract corresponding
to your best trump fit- assuming we have 10 trumps, they have 8 trumps
there are 18 total tricks out there, and it is not clear, if we make 8,9 or 10.
In other words, if you just bid blindly up to the law level you may turn a
plus score in a minus score.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I am still bidding game, but this decision has nothing, repeat nothing, to
do with the law.