[han]

Mikeh's analysis is wonderful for the discussion, and moreover, being able to make such an analysis at the table is a great asset for bridge players. I am not convinced that it is called for on this hand at the table.

Haven't we all thought about very similar decisions many times before, and don't we know rather quickly what we we would bid? Are the tertiary inferences going to change anything?

I am not saying we should bid 4NT in a flash. A jumpy auction like this doesn't call for bidding in a flash, and besides, inferences that we make now (such as that RHO probably has spade length) may be useful later. But if we think about such decisions for 25 seconds then we spend a lot of energy, we may tip off the opponents (a great example in Bramley's report on te Vanderbilt in the last BW) and we may create problems for partner.

I don't mean to suggest that mikeh would actually spend 25 seconds on his analysis, of course I pulled that number out of my hat. What I am saying is that I would consider this a somewhat mundane decision that I would make without going as in-depth as mikeh does here.

[mikeh]

han, on 2011-August-25, 09:13, said:

Mikeh's analysis is wonderful for the discussion, and moreover, being able to make such an analysis at the table is a great asset for bridge players. I am not convinced that it is called for on this hand at the table.

Haven't we all thought about very similar decisions many times before, and don't we know rather quickly what we we would bid? Are the tertiary inferences going to change anything?

I am not saying we should bid 4NT in a flash. A jumpy auction like this doesn't call for bidding in a flash, and besides, inferences that we make now (such as that RHO probably has spade length) may be useful later. But if we think about such decisions for 25 seconds then we spend a lot of energy, we may tip off the opponents (a great example in Bramley's report on te Vanderbilt in the last BW) and we may create problems for partner.

I don't mean to suggest that mikeh would actually spend 25 seconds on his analysis, of course I pulled that number out of my hat. What I am saying is that I would consider this a somewhat mundane decision that I would make without going as in-depth as mikeh does here.

You are right, of course.....what I wrote was as it were an extended-play version of what I would consciously think at the table. There are hands on which I would take the time to do the full-blown analysis, but I suspect that all of us have developed barely conscious or even subconscious subroutines for situations that we encounter frequently. We sort of automate some aspects of the analysis, and I am sure I would do so here.

However, my take on how non-experts will often go wrong here is because they either have little prior experience with this situation or, perhaps more commonly, have never learned how to draw and rely upon inferences in the manner I set out.

I think I would make my call within about 5-10 seconds, perhaps a little longer behind screens, and that some but not all of my conscious thought processes would be as I wrote, but that my non-verbal thinking would incorporate the entire analysis. I know that I think faster than my mind can form words, and it is that non-verbal or perhaps subconscious part of the brain that will be completing the analysis.

In that sense, my post and my subsequent reply that I do think this way at the table was a little misleading....on this hand, since I have encountered its like many times, I would be unlikely to do the full monty. But I hope that doesn't detract from the utility of my earlier post.

[gszes]

pulling to 4n with the hand shown really
makes it extraordinarily difficult for p
to reopen with x. In fact about the only
time they can afford to reopen with x is
if they have a rock crusher. Do we really
want p to have to PASS when they have
hands similar to

AKxx x Axxx Axxx (put K in any suit but hearts)

whats wrong with taking an extra sure 50?

and a whole slew of slightly stronger hands that
would give zero play in 5 of a minor

then there are also the just plain strong hands
with lots of defense like;)

KQJx x KJTx AKQx

which offer no play for 5 of a minor yet are
an overwhelming favorite to hammer 4h

these hands are all weaker than the ones needed
to make 5/6 of a minor and are a ton more
likely.

If you think reopening with hands like

KJxx x AKxx KQxx

is a good idea (I dont because I would
hate for p to pass with a weak hand),
definitely balance with 4n with the hand
given in problem at imps because a double
swing is definitely possible

[jogs]

gszes, on 2011-August-25, 11:43, said:

and a whole slew of slightly stronger hands that
would give zero play in 5 of a minor

then there are also the just plain strong hands
with lots of defense like;)

KQJx x KJTx AKQx

which offer no play for 5 of a minor yet are
an overwhelming favorite to hammer 4h

these hands are all weaker than the ones needed
to make 5/6 of a minor and are a ton more
likely.

If you think reopening with hands like

KJxx x AKxx KQxx

is a good idea (I dont because I would
hate for p to pass with a weak hand),
definitely balance with 4n with the hand
given in problem at imps because a double
swing is definitely possible

Sometimes there's not way to judge the defense
from the auction.

Opponents may be

3=6=4=0 facing 5=4=0=4

All those minor tricks may vanish.

[jonottawa]

Pass. The spots could not be clearer.

[jdeegan]

jogs, on 2011-August-25, 06:34, said:

The LOTT gives an estimate of total tricks which is +/- two tricks. From How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks knowing the pattern of the side suits will narrow the range to +/- one trick. Flatness leads to fewer tricks. Voids leads to more tricks than the LOTT estimates.

1. How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks presents an analytical framework that can be even better than the LOTT on many hands. I love it. It really illustrates how deadly stiff minor honors in the opps suit are in competitive auctions.
2. Both LOTT and I fought the law are simply two tools among many that can help the bridge player.
3. Proper use of LOTT adds a trick for both a void and a seven bagger. 4-4 fits outside of trumps are not secondary fits since there is no discard available, etc. etc. "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or not taste not the Pierian spring."
4. The way the song goes is: "I fought the law, and the law won." Don't forget that Mike and Anders picked the title for their own book. I'm sure Mike and probably Anders know the song. It's called irony, son.

[whereagles]

The law won because players aren't interested in rocket science.

LOTT is dead simple and, if you use Cohen's adjustments, it gives you the right answer a great deal of the time.

FTL is clearly more accurate but it needs at-table calculations and some assumptions only an experienced player can get right.

If bridge players were all geeks we'd definitely see everybody using FTL instead of LOTT. But that's not the case.

[jogs]

jdeegan, on 2011-August-25, 16:11, said:

1. How I Fought the Law of Total Tricks presents an analytical framework that can be even better than the LOTT on many hands. I love it. It really illustrates how deadly stiff minor honors in the opps suit are in competitive auctions.
2. Both LOTT and I fought the law are simply two tools among many that can help the bridge player.
3. Proper use of LOTT adds a trick for both a void and a seven bagger. 4-4 fits outside of trumps are not secondary fits since there is no discard available, etc. etc. "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or not taste not the Pierian spring."
4. The way the song goes is: "I fought the law, and the law won." Don't forget that Mike and Anders picked the title for their own book. I'm sure Mike and probably Anders know the song. It's called irony, son.

HCP is the first estimate of tricks.
Use HCP and combined trumps for the second estimate of tricks.

Expected(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e

This is the equation for the estimate of tricks for one side.

Wirgrens/Lawrence work does NOT replace LOTT. Used with LOTT it improves the estimates.

E(tricks) = C(ts) + (HCP-20)/3 + e

Where the array C is a family of constants for each combined trumps and pattern fit combination.

[gnasher]

Did the "Law" win? My impression is that very few good players rely on it.

There's really no substitute for thinking about what everyone else has got, then working out what each side is likely to make. I might not agree with gszes's conclusions about this particular hand, but his approach seems a lot better than counting up how many trumps everyone has and then magically converting it to a number of tricks.

[jdeegan]

gnasher, on 2011-August-26, 06:25, said:

Did the "Law" win? My impression is that very few good players rely on it.

There's really no substitute for thinking about what everyone else has got, then working out what each side is likely to make. I might not agree with gszes's conclusions about this particular hand, but his approach seems a lot better than counting up how many trumps everyone has and then magically converting it to a number of tricks.

It is a good place to start. Analysis is not magic.

[jdeegan]

jogs, on 2011-August-26, 06:20, said:

HCP is the first estimate of tricks.
Use HCP and combined trumps for the second estimate of tricks.

Expected(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e

This is the equation for the estimate of tricks for one side.

Wirgrens/Lawrence work does NOT replace LOTT. Used with LOTT it improves the estimates.

E(tricks) = C(ts) + (HCP-20)/3 + e

Where the array C is a family of constants for each combined trumps and pattern fit combination.

the integral of e to the x = fun.

[jogs]

jdeegan, on 2011-August-28, 02:25, said:

the integral of e to the x = fun.

ANOVA. Analysis of variance.
Forgot to state that 'e' is the residue errors.

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-22, 10:11, said:

The second double is a power double (extra strength, not extra distribution).

I know you changed your mind on this hand, but I am not talking about the hand, IMO this statement is wrong on ageneral basis, a second double promises extras, wich can be on the form of extra strenght, or on the form of extra shape, so partner can have 13 count with 4036 or 18 count 4144 or even 22 balanced (some experts will pass with the big balanced hand to avoid us pulling with a weak hand and heart shortness)

[aguahombre]

Hey, Fluff. Where you been?

Perhaps on another thread we can debate whether to venture a second double at the 4-level with 4-0-3-6 and a mini.

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2011-August-28, 09:02, said:

....., a second double promises extras, wich can be on the form of extra strenght, or on the form of extra shape, ....

I disagree

Unless you have an agreement with opponents that says they bid 4♥ only with weak hands and a lot of cards in their pd's suit. It is not uncommon at all to bid 4♥ with very good hands and only 2-3 card fit to pd.

[jdeegan]

MrAce, on 2011-August-28, 22:49, said:

I disagree

Unless you have an agreement with opponents that says they bid 4♥ only with weak hands and a lot of cards in their pd's suit. It is not uncommon at all to bid 4♥ with very good hands and only 2-3 card fit to pd.

I completely agree with MrAce. This why partner has to have a bunch of high cards for the double. He is, in part, protecting against getting swindled. Notwithstanding, you still have to bid with 5-5 in the minors.