[mich-b]

Scoring: IMP

P-1♣-1♦-1♠
X-2♠-P-P
3♦-P-P-?

---

1♠ showed 4 cards,
2♠ is 4 card support (support XX with 3)
(West's) X was t/o , showing ♥s

Do you routinely follow LOTT and bid 3♠ , or are there any reasons to pass?
Is it close?

[JLOL]

Definitely pass, not close. The law is terrible.

[mtvesuvius]

Pass. Reason: I'm not a big fan of numbers in the minus column greater than 200.

[Hanoi5]

You have a 9-card fit but QTx in THEIR suit, if you adjust probably the law will tell you not to bid. Hearts are behind you also...

[Winstonm]

I agree that the Law is terrible if all you do is slavishly bid to the level of your combined trump holdings - but if you use it as intended, with the additions and subtractions written about in the second book, it is worthwhile to help guage competetive actions.

The secondary honors in opps suit, lack of spots and poor shape all scream out for negative adjustments - 17 total tricks is adjusted to 16, and therefore pass is suggested.

[peachy]

This is how "The Law" gets a bad reputation. Someone bids with this hand and uses "the law" as justification for the bid. Pass is very clear.

[nick_s]

Pass. Not close. The Law is only a tool.

A big takeaway for me from Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls was that Qxx in the opponents suit when they have found a fit is a huge negative. Not only is it worthless offensively, but the opponents are bidding without the Q, so they have compensating values elsewhere.

[zasanya]

Winstonm, on May 3 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

I agree that the Law is terrible if all you do is slavishly bid to the level of your combined trump holdings - but if you use it as intended, with the additions and subtractions written about in the second book, it is worthwhile to help guage competetive actions.

The secondary honors in opps suit, lack of spots and poor shape all scream out for negative adjustments -  17 total tricks is adjusted to 16, and therefore pass is suggested.

With 16 total tricks the law does not recommend bidding 3 over 3 with 17 it does.So its a border line case .I will bid 3.

[jdonn]

Rather than use the law with exceptions, I prefer to use judgment with no exceptions. Either practice calls for passing on this hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

you have 9 trumps, the law tells you to bid 3S, unless there are neg.
factors to consider.
a neg. factor are secondary honors in the oppnents suits, you have
Q10 in diamond, which is a neg. factor.
The king of hearts is a bit unclear, but it is a little bit more likely, that
he is positional wrong placed.

Cohen said, if you have more neg indicators that pos. indicators,
than do the adjustments, so following the law would mean, you
pass, although it is close.

Aditionnally you have a bal. hand, which is also more suited for
defence than for offence.

There is a stronger case for bidding 3S, if you open sound in 2nd seat.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[dicklont]

jdonn, on May 3 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Rather than use the law with exceptions, I prefer to use judgment with no exceptions.

You said it man!

I think this beautiful quote is a good guideline in real life as well.

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on May 3 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Rather than use the law with exceptions, I prefer to use judgment with no exceptions. Either practice calls for passing on this hand.

That's all very fine and dandy. But everyone knows that it takes a lot of bridge experience to develop your level of judgement. It takes virtually no experience to blindly follow the law.

Implying that using your judgement is better than following the law is comparing apples and oranges. Your judgement has been developed enough, so that your judgement is superior to following the law blindly. However, for 80+ % of the bridge players, the law is more accurate than their own bridge judgement. This group will score better when they follow the law than when they follow their poor judgement.

A little over 10 years ago, I ran a simulation: I let a commercial bridge playing program play out about 300 (random) deals. I forced the software to let EW play in their longest trump fit and NS in their longest trump fit. Then I recorded the number of tricks that each side took. I plotted the number of total tricks against the number of total trumps. Of course, the law didn't predict the number of total tricks accurately. I also recorded the number of HCPs in the combined EW and NS hands. I plotted how many tricks one side could take in their best trump fit against the number of HCPs in their combined hands.

Then, I did the statistics. It turned out that the law was significantly more accurate in predicting the number of total tricks than the Milton work HCP count was in predicting the number of tricks for one side. I found that remarkable, given the attitude that the bridge 'experts' have towards the Law and the Milton work count.

When it comes to the Milton work count, they will say that this obviously is a guideline. There are good points and bad points. You need to look at honor placement. You will need to add in distribution points. And then still you only have an approximation... But hey, for the vast majority of the bridge community there is no better alternative, so let's stick with it. The flaws in the Milton work count are no big deal.

When it comes to the Law of Total Tricks, they will immediately claim that it is worthless, that using judgement works much better and that the Law should be thrown out of the window. It seems that flaws in the Law are a big deal. On top of that, you either are with the Law or you are against it. Very few experts can just say that the law has some merit: Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

My advice on the Law is: When you know what to do, do it (and don't look at the Law). When you don't know what to do, follow the law. It might just be right this time.

And to me it seems rather obvious that Josh will know far more often what to do than my mother. That means that my mother will follow the law more often and Josh will follow his judgement more often.

Rik

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on May 3 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Rather than use the law with exceptions, I prefer to use judgment with no exceptions. Either practice calls for passing on this hand.

LOTT is IMO simply an effort to help quantify good judgement for those with poor card sense.

[AnJoe]

That is Milton Work point count, not Milton work as you repeatedly stated.

Mr. Work suggested the point count long before Mr. Goren did. I learned it from his book when I was a teenager and never had to struggle with cumbersome honor count a la Culbertson.

That was all a long time ago before anyone ever heard of LOTT. Mr. Watson was writing his book then too.

love
joan

[mich-b]

Thanks to everybody who responded.

I passed , which didn't work well when partner held :

♠AKxx
♥AJxx
♦xx
♣Jxx

3♦ by them made (♠ 3-1), 3♠ by us would make as well (♥Q onside).

Just one of those things?

[blackshoe]

Yeah, well, as they say in Capistrano, one swallow doesn't make a summer.

[jdonn]

Spades were 2-2 and queen of hearts was offside? Good pass.

[Rossoneri]

Pass. This hand seems vaguely similar to the one in Human Bridge Errors! (Though the bidding is radically different)

[Oof Arted]

What is the quotation

Rules are for fools and for the guidance of wise men

[helene_t]

The small doubleton clubs is one of the reasons to expect this hand to have low purity and a negative LOTT correction. Due to partner's weak clubs, the purity is actually quite high.

Usually when I try to use my non-existing judgment and deviate from the LOTT, I regret it. Not this time.

Thanks to Rik and Winston for some nice thoughts about the LOTT.