Help
Quote
perhaps this belongs in a new thread but..........
Lott hummmm I remember when it became the rage. The first time i remember seeing it misapplied was at the local club. the auction went 1s p 2s p 4s down 2. The responder had 3 pts and 3 spades. When asked why they raised to 2 they responded because i wanted to follow the "law" ie: with 8 trump go to the 2 level.
The moral of this anecdote? The law has nothing , zero, nada to do with CONSTRUCTIVE bidding. It is used to determine whether or not one should compete to a given level (usually the 3 level) I say all this because if when playing my partner raises me with 3 trump and a 15ct after an auction that has proceeded
Lott hummmm I remember when it became the rage. The first time i remember seeing it misapplied was at the local club. the auction went 1s p 2s p 4s down 2. The responder had 3 pts and 3 spades. When asked why they raised to 2 they responded because i wanted to follow the "law" ie: with 8 trump go to the 2 level.
The moral of this anecdote? The law has nothing , zero, nada to do with CONSTRUCTIVE bidding. It is used to determine whether or not one should compete to a given level (usually the 3 level) I say all this because if when playing my partner raises me with 3 trump and a 15ct after an auction that has proceeded
Ok. Time to revisit the LOTT, so a new thread seems appropriate as Easy suggested. I think we could spend a lot of time discussing 1) when not to go the three level with four card support for openers major, 2) what useful conventions help you evaluate LOTT (like support double at two level only), 3) how to avoid LOTT-disasters like the one Easy quoted above. Why support double? To evaluate LOTT to decide if 2-level is the limit. To use support double at three level with 3 card support, you may have alreay violated LOTT... but more on these topics later if this thread grows. Let's start off with EASY's example quoted above of a LOTT disaster as a starting point for discussing LOTT and competitive/constructive bidding.
1S-(p)-2S lead to a disaster when the 2S bidder had only 3 points, 3 spades and opener was strong. Let's draw up a hand for responder to fit this example. To keep it simple, we make it
S-Kxx H-xxx D-xxx C-xxxx
Not a 2S bid in pretty much anyone's book (or is it?). But what if the bidding had gone 1S-DBL-? Would 2S now be acceptable?
The answer is, yes over a double a raise to 2S is absolutely required for its lead and preemptive value. First, for the lead. Your partner will likely be on lead after EAST bids his suits, and you want to tell partner it is OK to lead a SPADE (you certainly don't want him leading away from a minor honor when he holds S-AQxxx for instance.)
Second, for premptive value. If you pass the bidding might go 1S-(x)-P-(2H)-P-(2S)-P-3H pass, and they made a game try, and found out they didn't have quite enough. But if you bid 2S, the bidding could go 1S-(x)-2S-(3H)-P-? and the doubler can not issue an invitation. He has to go or not on his own. Or it might go 1S-(x)-P-2H-P-3H/4H-P-P-P where doubler issues a mild game try and responder accepts/declines. Here they exchanged a lot of information, but over 1S-(x)-2S-(3H)-P-? the doubler can not issue a mild or strong suggestion to continue. He simply has to decide on his own, and he will be wrong more of the time than if he can ask his partner for help making the decision.
What you need to raise to 2S on this hand over the double is a conventional way to separate the normal constructive raise to 2S from this preemptive LOTT-based raise (which was EASY's point). First, 1S-(X)-2S sounds weak and competitive, so even without a conventional treatment, you will probably not confuse partner. However, a variety of conventions have been established to separate these. These include Jordon 2NT, the use of 2CLUBS over the double with a good raise to 2, but I prefer over DBL that 1NT transfers to clubs, 2C transfers to diamonds, 2D transfers to hearts and 2H shows normal raise to 2S. All the "transfers" (except 2H) deny SPADE support. If the opening bid was 1H-DBL then 1S is natural, 2H is weak, 1NTand 2C are transfers and 2D is the strong raise to 2H.
The 2S raise over the DBL discussed above with the yellow hand is no more right or wrong than the 2S raise directly over the pass as a general principle. The problem was that opener had every right to expect the 2S bid to be a weak competitive bid over the DOUBLE, but a constructive bid without it. But what if your agreement was something else? What if you AGREED that a 1S-p-2S bid would be just as if the bidding had gone 1S-DBL-2S? That is, say something like 3 Spades and a horrible hand? Maybe something like 0-6 points. If you did, then it would be opener's leap to 4S that would draw the complaints!
I am not suggesting anyone bid this way, but I know several LOTT-advocates who play a scheme where 2C is a kind of Drury even opposite a first or second seat opening bid (major support, constructive simple raise or better), or else a true 2-over-1 game force with CLUBS. Opener bids 2S only if he would pass a constructive 2S raise. Two Diamonds rebid by opener is then used as a kind of relay, expressing some doubt about game (sort of game invitational if responder has a constructive SPADE raise). Over opener's 2S rebid, responder passes with a constructive limit raise, although he can raise to 3S if he is on top of his constructive range (which could be played as high as 10 hcp). Over 2D he bids 2 or 3 of the major depending upon how good his constructive raise was. Any other bid by responder cancels the initial meaning of 2C as support, and basically denies good spade support and is game force (with clubs and spades, see below). In such a scheme, jumpshifts were being played as "FIT JUMPS" just as if the opponents had made a bid in between
Other typical bids in such a scheme
- 1M-2M weak, 2-4 card support, 0-6 points
- 1M-2C = normal constructive raise to two or a club suit-GF no real fit
- 1M-2NT = Limit Raise or better
- 1H-2S/3C/3D = suit bid plus fit, values to raise to 3 level, or slam try
- 1S-3C/3D/3H = suit bid plus fit, values to raise to 3 level, or slam try
- 1S-4C/4D/4H = suit bid plus fit, values to raise to 4 level
- 1H-3S/4C/4D = suit bid plus fit, values to raise to 4 level
- 3NT = sorter, balanced 4 card support 13-15 hcp
To play a scheme like this, what have you give up? At least: 1) WJS or Strong Jump Shifts, 2) Bergen Raises, and 3) Jacoby 2NT.
The loss of the Bergen raise is more than compensated for by the flexibility over 2NT limit raise, as plenty of room exist for further exploration below game. The loss of strong jumpshifts is no problem, for who plays those these days? The loss of Jacoby could hamper a lot of people, who thus would not want to even consider such an auction. They also give up some clarity on auctions where responder has real clubs. A 3CLUB rebid is often made on 5 card suit instead of a 6 card one, say over 2SPADE response, for instance.
Over this you have gained the ability to raise preemptively before the opponents bid. In the yellow example above, is there any doubt if you pass your LHO will balance. If they buy the contract don't you want a SPADE lead? Fit Jumps have advantages and disadvantages, but if you like them, this scheme also gives those to you. And clearly it is better to bid 2S now when weak and hear maybe
1S-(p)-2S-(3H)-p-(4H) rather than
1S-(p)-(p)-2H-(p)-3H-p-p-p and not even get a spade lead, or
1S-(p)-p-(DBL)-P-(2H)-P-(3H)-P-(4H) instead of
1S-(p)-2S-(DBL)-P-(3H)-P-P-P
Notice, when you bid 2S, they have less room to seek cooperation. On first auction, the H raiser gets a chance to make an invitational bid, on second he has to simply bid on or not on his own. On the second group of auctions, It is the 2H bidder tha can issue an invite, a second try if you like. They seldom get these auctions wrong. But over 2S, they have less room to decide and have to roll the dice on their own.
But the point is, the problem that occurred in Easy's example auction wasn't that 2S bid had 3 points and 3 Spades, it was that the partnership had no agreement to allow for both "Competitive bidding" in the absences of competion :-) (what Robson/Segal call Potentially Contested Auctions or PCA) and Constructive bidding at the same time. I would NEVER bid 2S over 1S with the yellow example hand above unless A) RHO doubled, or
I was playing some form of bidding that allowed me to separate a weak, preemptive raise (2S) in a PCA from a normal constructive raise. I have played such a scheme with some partners with good success, but not enough to form a solid opinion as to whether the tradeoffs are worth it or not. What do you think of LOTT? Over applied? Misapplied? Good primarily only at 3 level as Easy suggested? Favorite LOTT-based conventions?