[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-02, 14:25, said:

Careful, Rik. The problem with your analysis (excellent, I might add), is that it is totally parallel to the logic of LOTT. And forum regulars have decided that LOTT doesn't work

And they are absolutely correct... some of the time. The key is to know who is correct on the particular hand that you are playing.

Rik

[Trinidad]

nigel_k, on 2011-October-02, 16:47, said:

It's not a matter of opinion. Double dummy analysis shows that total trumps is equal total tricks less than half the time when there are 18/19 total trumps. With more total trumps it is even worse. Most times you cannot afford to be off by a trick. For example, when they compete with 3♦ over your 2♠, you should continue to 3♠ if there are 19 total tricks but not if there are 18. If you rely on LOTT you are getting these hands wrong most of the time.

Of course it is easy to come up with hands where LOTT works, especially if you are allowed to include hands that are barely consistent with the auction and you get to simply stipulate how many tricks each side takes.

I know, the LOTT is terrible.

Did you ever run such a double dummy analysis for the Milton Work count? You will see that it is considerably worse than the LOTT.

Does that mean that we should throw the HCPs out of the window? No, it doesn't. It just means that we should use our brains too. There is a reason why Walrusses are losing bridge players. But on some hands, the Milton Work count works nicely for its purpose. And on some hands (in fact more hands), the LOTT works nicely for what it was meant for. The key to good bridge is to realize what is wrong with the Milton Work count and what is wrong with the LOTT and then adjust your bidding accordingly.

I find it easy to first count our HCPs, evaluate how many tricks those are worth and then look whether I see reasons why I will take more or less tricks (i.e. how HCPs will be wrong). It certainly beats counting honor tricks, or "just guessing" without looking at HCPs.

In a similar way, I find it easy to estimate the total number of tricks using the LOTT and then look for reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic. For me, it works better than just going blind without considering the number of trumps.

Predicting something and having a good idea how your prediction is wrong is actually pretty good compared to not having any predicting tool at all.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Some people call those negative and positive adjustments.

[nigel_k]

The given hand has secondary honours in the long suits, no secondary honours (except ♣10) in the short suits, and a side source of tricks. Everything about the hand suggests that total tricks will exceed total trumps. If people are still saying a superaccept is wrong on this hand because there is no fourth trump, it doesn't sound to me as though any adjustments are actually being made. And the people proposing a rule that there is no superaccept without a fourth trump are obviously not using LOTT as merely a starting point.

The Milton Work point count is not comparable because it is used early in the auction when there is little or no information about the other hands. LOTT is used late in the auction to make a decision about whether to pass, bid or double when there is much more information about the other hands. The alternative of making the decision based on judgment and experience instead of a formulaic approach is better in the latter case but not the former.

[mike777]

nigel_k, on 2011-October-02, 20:50, said:

The given hand has secondary honours in the long suits, no secondary honours (except ♣10) in the short suits, and a side source of tricks. Everything about the hand suggests that total tricks will exceed total trumps. If people are still saying a superaccept is wrong on this hand because there is no fourth trump, it doesn't sound to me as though any adjustments are actually being made. And the people proposing a rule that there is no superaccept without a fourth trump are obviously not using LOTT as merely a starting point.

The Milton Work point count is not comparable because it is used early in the auction when there is little or no information about the other hands. LOTT is used late in the auction to make a decision about whether to pass, bid or double when there is much more information about the other hands. The alternative of making the decision based on judgment and experience instead of a formulaic approach is better in the latter case but not the former.

I strongly disagree. If you think LOTT has any meaning below game level you superaccept with only 4 cards.


Fought the Law, Lawrence, I own but it never seemed to gain much traction in bridge lit.


OTOH if your argument is LOTT is not helpful and is in fact harmful in comp auctions then that is another thread.
-------------



IN any event I open 1h with this hand type not 1nt and I open 1nt offshape very very often.



W

[blackshoe]

5332 with a five card major isn't "off shape" for a balanced hand.

[aguahombre]

Regardless of our sidetracking about the Law, the OP hands together produce a poor game chance.

If this is a 1NT opening in your style, and a super acceptance; then responder should not continue to game. Mirrored doubletons in diamonds are known from the conditions of the post, responder didn't start out with an "almost invite", and only has five spades. Plus he apparently cannot be assured of a 9-card fit.

If opener's hand is such an upgrade that he should open 1H (it is not, IMO), it will be difficult to stop short of game opposite that responder; and most likely the game bid will be in hearts, not spades. Spades will probably never be mentioned.

There is a relatively irrelevant opinion held by some of us that a super acceptance should show a hand worth more than 17 in support of the major; and that this occurs when the opener has good controls, a doubleton, and four trumps (or a surprise five-card source of tricks). This one falls short. It would certainly accept any invite by responder, but the likelihood of making game opposite a non-invite is not high enough to risk giving the opponents extra information.

[whereagles]

the hog, on 2011-October-02, 18:12, said:

It is not "bean counting", Nuno. It is playing winning bridge.

Winning bridge is also taking percentage actions when the system lacks. You can't always think pard has 0-1 HCP. On average pard will have a fair share of the remaining 23-25 hcp, especially if opps pass non-chalantly. Sure, you'll look silly some of the time. But on occasion you'll get to some thin good games (and slams) if you superaccept on good hands with 3 cards.

[the_dude]

Take away partner's J of clubs and all of a sudden you can't make 3♠ even though it's clearly your hand.

The 4-trump requirement doesn't coem from the theory that you are always making 3♠, but it *does* mean that if you aren't, they are likely making something. With only 8 trump and balanced hands on both sides, there's no reason to voluntarily go down in 3 when they can't make anything.

[Trinidad]

whereagles, on 2011-October-03, 05:47, said:

Winning bridge is also taking percentage actions when the system lacks. You can't always think pard has 0-1 HCP. On average pard will have a fair share of the remaining 23-25 hcp, especially if opps pass non-chalantly. Sure, you'll look silly some of the time. But on occasion you'll get to some thin good games (and slams) if you superaccept on good hands with 3 cards.

Of course, you shouldn't always think that partner is broke. But as I wrote before:

Trinidad, on 2011-October-02, 11:09, said:

Your five card heart suit only yields the same tricks as the extra trump if the opponents cannot take their tricks immediately, i.e. if responder has controls. But if responder has controls, he will usually not pass 2♠ and you will still be able to show your maximum after partner's invitation (or slam try).

Without controls from partner this hand takes a trick less than the hand with 4 trumps. With controls from partner it has the same trick potential as the hand with four trumps. So treat it the same as the four trump hand once you know that partner has something.
So, with four trumps, you can superaccept since it doesn't really matter if partner has values. And with the actual hand you will need to see first if partner has some controls and you just bid 2♠. Don't worry, partner won't pass out 2♠ if he holds two aces. And then you can upgrade your hand generously for the five card suit. You can accept any game invitation and cooperate with any slam try, because you have a nice hand if partner has something. But if partner has nothing, your five card suit won't work. That makes it losing bridge to superaccept on this hand.

Rik

[jmcw]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-03, 08:36, said:

Of course, you shouldn't always think that partner is broke. But as I wrote before:

....... Don't worry, partner won't pass out 2♠ if he holds two aces. And then you can upgrade your hand generously for the five card suit. You can accept any game invitation and cooperate with any slam try, because you have a nice hand if partner has something. But if partner has nothing, your five card suit won't work. That makes it losing bridge to superaccept on this hand.

Rik

When you fail to superaccept the transfer, partner will usually pass 6 or 7 point hands. With 8 point, maybe 9 partner will invite.
IMO the whole point of superaccepting is to offer up a chance for partner to proceed with the said 6/7 points.
Additionally, why are all the detractors fixed on the fact that partner has only 5♠, he can have 6!

[bd71]

nigel_k, on 2011-October-02, 16:47, said:

It's not a matter of opinion. Double dummy analysis shows that total trumps is equal total tricks less than half the time when there are 18/19 total trumps. With more total trumps it is even worse. Most times you cannot afford to be off by a trick. For example, when they compete with 3♦ over your 2♠, you should continue to 3♠ if there are 19 total tricks but not if there are 18. If you rely on LOTT you are getting these hands wrong most of the time.

Of course it is easy to come up with hands where LOTT works, especially if you are allowed to include hands that are barely consistent with the auction and you get to simply stipulate how many tricks each side takes.

This note suggests that there are probably one or several seminal old threads on the value of LOTT...

I tried searching but I wasn't able to find any. Can someone more facile in unearthing old posts point me (or others who may be interested) to any threads?

[Trinidad]

jmcw, on 2011-October-03, 09:29, said:

When you fail to superaccept the transfer, partner will usually pass 6 or 7 point hands. With 8 point, maybe 9 partner will invite.
IMO the whole point of superaccepting is to offer up a chance for partner to proceed with the said 6/7 points.
Additionally, why are all the detractors fixed on the fact that partner has only 5♠, he can have 6!

Of course, partner can have 6... or 7... or 8... or 5 trumps. But we don't know that. Partner does. He will take his extra trump length into account when he picks his rebid after 2♠. Why should we start guessing how many trumps partner has? If we just describe our hand correctly, we can let partner take care of evaluating his trump length and make the right decision. (Did I already mention that partner is the captain on this auction?)

Rik

[ggwhiz]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-03, 11:08, said:

Of course, partner can have 6... or 7... or 8... or 5 trumps. But we don't know that. Partner does. He will take his extra trump length into account when he picks his rebid after 2♠. Why should we start guessing how many trumps partner has? If we just describe our hand correctly, we can let partner take care of evaluating his trump length and make the right decision. (Did I already mention that partner is the captain on this auction?)

Rik

Shortsighted I think. When I fail to super accept my pard plays me for a doubleton or a worm, possibly both.

They are much better placed with a more nimble positive response to be the Captain. If we lose a few partscore swings but gain even a very few game swings when responder is in the good 7 pt range, we are "winning" (Charlie Sheen).

[Trinidad]

ggwhiz, on 2011-October-03, 13:10, said:

Shortsighted I think. When I fail to super accept my pard plays me for a doubleton or a worm.

They are much better placed with a more nimble structure to be the Captain. If we lose a few partscore swings but gain even a very few game swings when responder is in the good 7 pt range, we are "winning" (Charlie Sheen).

Huh?!?
The original post doesn't specify a form of scoring (which to me usually means that it is MP pairs). In that case losing a few partscore swings and winning very few game swings is obviously losing bridge leading to a score of about (very few)/((very few)+(few)) x 100%. For every value of (very few) < (few) this leads to a result that is less than 50%.
But suppose that it is IMP scoring. A part score swing is half a game swing. So even at IMPs, as long as (very few)<(few)/2, your strategy is losing.

Rik

[ggwhiz]

Don't forget that my lack of a super accept can put the brakes on marginal invites and save a board here and there too. I admit that some of our 3-level partscores need a mis-defence but they happen.

If the style fits partnership wise it works fine.

Note: If it doesn't hrothgars approach below works fine too. Will your partner accept failure with a shrug? Either way works if that happens and my pard is allergic to +170 but will accept -50 or whatever as "unlucky" as long as I didn't mis-play it.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I'm in the camp the prefers to use a super accept to show 4+ card trump support.

I normally play the old fashioned Bergen system in which

1. An immediate bid of 3M shows 4 card trump support and a minimum hand
2. An immediate bid of 2N shows a maximum hand with 4 card trump support and 4-3-3-3 shape
3. Other super accepts show a maximum hand with a doubleton

I think that this style (which is designed to show shape) is much superior to one where the super accept shows range.

We already have bidding sequences to investigate whether or not opener holds a minimum or a maximum. I'm fairly skeptical about the utility of range asks to begin with. Devoting more bidding space to said range asks so I can discriminate between a 16 count and 17 count seems absurd.

[gnasher]

I loathe the method where opener automatically shows his doubleton (except when I'm on lead). If you really think this is important information, just play that with any 4432 opener bids the first step above the trump suit. If responder wants to know where the doubleton is, he can use the next step to ask for it.

[mikeh]

I use the method where a super-accept shows a worthless doubleton at the 3 level (not 3♠ over 2♦ tho). It has a significant downside in that it helps the defence both on opening lead and later in defence, tho only if opener is declarer. However, it can allow more accurate hand evaluation by responder and can also allow responder to declare the hand in some instances.

In fairness, I have been playing this only in my current partnership, and it has come up rarely. So far, the results have been neutral, neither winning nor losing. However, the approach was, I think, played by Soloway at least in some of his partnerships, and he was a decent player, as I recall.

I certainly wouldn't use it on 'any doubleton'.....I don't see how that information is going to be of much use to responder much of the time, and clearly it will help the defence count out the hand if opener declares

[whereagles]

Well, showing a doubleton is good if there's a shortness fit, as in xxx/xx. The most important is the inference that the others suit have a nice hcp match. In other words, better to play

xxx/xx
AQx/Kxx

a 2 loser residue, than

Kxx/xx
AQx/xxx

which is, on average, a 3 loser residue.