[MrAce]

---

2♦=weak ♦, teamgame.

[HighLow21]

MrAce, on 2012-March-17, 14:20, said:

---

2♦=weak ♦, teamgame.

4♠. Don't want to miss game, ♠ is our most likely game, and if the opponents aren't fools, we have at most 1 diamond loser. My 10 HCP are all working except for the JD, a small give-up.

[inquiry]

Team game, tough. Choice is between four spades and pass and lead a trump, as that looks like a sure plus. The downside of pass is we might miss a slam if partner is really strong and LHO is just jerking us around. Still, I think I will pass and lead a trump if we can make 4♠ hope we can set it three to win 5 imps or at least two to lose only 3 imps.

[BunnyGo]

inquiry, on 2012-March-17, 15:27, said:

Team game, tough. Choice is between four spades and pass and lead a trump, as that looks like a sure plus. The downside of pass is we might miss a slam if partner is really strong and LHO is just jerking us around. Still, I think I will pass and lead a trump if we can make 4♠ hope we can set it three to win 5 imps or at least two to lose only 3 imps.

+1.

[HighLow21]

inquiry, on 2012-March-17, 15:27, said:

Team game, tough. Choice is between four spades and pass and lead a trump, as that looks like a sure plus. The downside of pass is we might miss a slam if partner is really strong and LHO is just jerking us around. Still, I think I will pass and lead a trump if we can make 4♠ hope we can set it three to win 5 imps or at least two to lose only 3 imps.

Unless partner's singleton diamond is an honor, they have 5 trump tricks, and unless that honor is the A♦, they may have 6. If dummy has shortness in the right place, it may be 7. Add that all together and I expect them to make 7-8 tricks in diamonds and I expect us to make 10-11 tricks in spades. Thus pass nets 200-500 and 4♠ nets 620-650. If we really can set it 3 then we might have a play for 6♠.

[MrAce]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-18, 13:20, said:

Unless partner's singleton diamond is an honor, they have 5 trump tricks, and unless that honor is the A♦, they may have 6. If dummy has shortness in the right place, it may be 7. Add that all together and I expect them to make 7-8 tricks in diamonds and I expect us to make 10-11 tricks in spades. Thus pass nets 200-500 and 4♠ nets 620-650. If we really can set it 3 then we might have a play for 6♠.

Ummm...no...i disagree

Lets look at what "The Law" says (not that i am a follower but it gives apprx something close )

Pd has 1♦ so that makes them have a 9 card fit.

Pd may have 3-4 ♠ as he would also double with 3415, but lets assume we always find him with 4 cards ♠, that makes us have 8 card fit

8+9=17 trumps and law says there should be 17 total trix available. All red.

We make 11 trix in 4 ♠ +650
Then they make 6 trix in 3♦ +800

We make 10 trix in 4♠ +620
They make 7 trix in 3 ♦ +500

We make 9 trix in 4♠ -100
They make 8 trix in 3♦ +200

We make 8 trix in 4♠ -200 or -500(unlikely)
They make 9 trix in 3♦ -670

And there are adjustments, negative adjustments. 4333 hand, J8x in opponent trump. So there is a case the total number of trix available can be only 16

---

If u look at it, West's ♠ J is useless when they play it but it creates a trick for defense in 4 ♠. Si when i passed the double, i was expecting a +500 vs our likely +620. But it turned out to be much better than that since 4♠ was defeated by 2 in other room. Same auction the other table decided to bid 4♠ over double. So it was a 12 imps swing.

[HighLow21]

MrAce, on 2012-March-18, 13:59, said:

Ummm...no...i disagree

As is your right... I hereby reserve the right to be wrong!

[MrAce]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-18, 14:01, said:

As is your right... I hereby reserve the right to be wrong!

You are not wrong, this one is a close call. I was just trying to say you are leaning towards the positive side of bidding on this hand. As i said i dont apply the law of total tricks usually but sometimes use it as a guide. On this hand i did. The Law was off by 2 tricks as you can see without the adjustments and 1 or 0.5 trick off with the adjustments. There were 17 trumps and 15 tricks available with raw count. With adjustments there were 16 trumps.

But from experience i knew that if the LAW will be off, it would be off in favour of my decision, looking at my hand.

[inquiry]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-18, 13:20, said:

Unless partner's singleton diamond is an honor, they have 5 trump tricks, and unless that honor is the A♦, they may have 6. If dummy has shortness in the right place, it may be 7. Add that all together and I expect them to make 7-8 tricks in diamonds and I expect us to make 10-11 tricks in spades. Thus pass nets 200-500 and 4♠ nets 620-650. If we really can set it 3 then we might have a play for 6♠.

There is also two other possibilities, of course. The first dreadful one for passing is that they can make 3♦. The second golden one for passing is that you can not make 4♠. I have a hard time seeing them make 3♦ unless partner made his double with a void (most might try 4♦ instead of double with a void). So I am not overly worried about them making (6♦ and a high honor side trick seems likely most... I do double enough, however, as my opponents make doubled contracts against me... ), Four spades might lose the expected 1♦ and the mentioned side high honor (spade king behind my ace, or ace in hearts or clubs). The question is, can they manage a ruff in a suit, or do we have a natural slow losers in clubs or hearts and 4♠ doesn't make.

I am certainly not saying that passing is right, but in the long run, I expect to be positive almost all the time. Sometimes my positive will be low. But if I am but +200, I don't expect 4♠ to make. Perhaps the most likely outcome is indeed +500 versus -620, but other outcomes are, +500 versus -100, +200 verus -100 or -200, plus a few unlikely scores (+800 versus 620/650, or worse of all -670 versus +620). So I am gambling the most likely result of minus 3 imps (-120 on the most likely outcome) for quite a few larger swings in my favor. i can live with this at imps.

There is an article somewhere (acbl bulletin or bridge world most likely source) about thinking negatively. Don't try to reach the very best spot, but try to go positive. I am not quoting it correctly, but that is the gist. Here, I am not aiming for the top spot (4♠ making will probably beat any score I can get for doubling) but I think I am willing to deal with leaving the double in. I will not be critical of anyone who wants to go for the "top scoring spot" and bid 4♠, after all they are probably right 6 out of 10 times or maybe 7 out of 10. It is the 3 or 4 out of 10 when they are wrong that hurt.

I don;t mean these numbers to represent reality in this situation, but just to show what I am talking about above. Lets assume for the sake of arguement that:
1 out of 10 you set 3♦x 800 and make 4♠ that would be 5 imps to passing
6 out of 10 4♠ makes and 3♦ is down 500 for a net 18 imps to bidding 5♠ these six times
1 out of 10 4♠ does not make and 3♦ is down one, 5 imps to pass (plus 100 both tables)
2 out of 10 4♠ does not make and 3♦ is down two (+600 swing, for 12 imps x 2 tables = 24 imps)

net expectation is +18 to bidding 4♠, net expectation for passing 34 imps to passing,

Perhaps you want to factor in 3♦x making, getting to a making 6♠, or you think 4[sp makes more often than 7 out of 10 times, or down 800 occurs less than one out of 10 times. That is fine, but as you can see, in my roughed in calculations, bidding to the top spot theoretical spot (4[sp]) everytime might not be the best imps odds in the long run. In my estimate, I am willing to pay the expected 3 imp penalty when I am wrong here over the long run for the larger gains when I am right. I agree I may have slanted this in my favor by having 3♦ go down only one once, but it was just for illustrative purposes anyway.

[HighLow21]

inquiry, on 2012-March-18, 14:34, said:

<snip>
1 out of 10 you set 3♦x 800 and make 4♠ that would be 5 imps to passing
6 out of 10 4♠ makes and 3♦ is down 500 for a net 18 imps to bidding 5♠ these six times
1 out of 10 4♠ does not make and 3♦ is down one, 5 imps to pass (plus 100 both tables)
2 out of 10 4♠ does not make and 3♦ is down two (+600 swing, for 12 imps x 2 tables = 24 imps)
<snip>

This is why I don't use the LOTT. (In fact I was even going to suggest I do a hypothetical analysis using LOTT before the answer was published, and thought better of it because I know so many people have so much disdain for it...)

All in all, seems like a very close hand and it may be that if this situation occurred 1,000 times, the long-run IMP winner would be passing 3♦. All depends on the weights of the above scenarios (and some others not yet mentioned) and some stuff I mention below. Very good analysis by Ben.

-Assuming, as I was going to, that there are 17 trumps, and assuming that Tricks = Trumps, then it is right to bid 4♠ if we have 10 tricks and they have 7. This will be true an awful lot of the time on this auction. It also makes sense to bid spades if they are taking 9 tricks and we're taking 8 (even doubled down 2, it is better than giving up the vul game). So it's right in 2 of the 4 common cases (We make 10 or 8) and wrong in the other two (We make 11 or 9).
-Assuming negative adjustments, then it will never be better to bid the game, assuming we always get doubled when we're going down.
-Assuming positive adjustments (unlikely here, but possible), it will almost always be right to bid game.
-I know that Jxx in the opponents' trump suit is a potential indicator that there is a negative adjustment (schmooze speak for "random fudge factor") but there's no reason at all that partner's ♦ singleton has to be a minor honor (and statistically, it's far less likely to be Q or K than to be A or T thru 2). But nothing about my hand suggests partner has wasted HCP. I seem to have only 1 wasted HCP and since partner basically just bid 3 suits simultaneously, I'm willing to dump 1 HCP for an upgrade in the other 9.
-Defensive ruffs can totally throw the LAW off. So do a number of other factors, which can make the difference between Total Trumps and Total Tricks as high as TWELVE. (Yes, 12.) It shouldn't be called the LAW at all. It should be called "the occasional coincidence of total trumps" because it's only right about 40% of the time and frequently off by 2 or more, and the relationship between the two variables is only coincidental, not causal.
-The LAW assumes perfect defense which isn't always the case; it also assumes perfect declarer play, which isn't always the case.

Some other thoughts:
-I will be embarrassed as heck at IMPs if my side is making 4 spades (or only 1 off) and, due to a defensive error, they make 3♦. Defending 3 of a minor doubled is my least favorite activity in the world, especially without a trump trick. (I realize it's unlikely to make, but make dummy a bit more shapely, for example, or give it more entries to establish clubs...)
-The fact that my hand happens to be flat doesn't mean partner's is. 4333 hands can play fine in a suit opposite a shapely dummy with no wasted honors.
-If I were partner, I do not think I'd be doubling 3♦ on that hand. I've got bad spots, only 1 ace, a wasted queen, and at most 12 working points. (As it turns out, only 9 HCP are working.) Not enough for me to force partner to respond at the 9-trick level. Make my Q♦ the T♦ and change my spades to KJ93♠ and I'd double. Granted, it's right to play partner for 8-9 in this spot, but he has 9 working HCP and we still cannot make game.

Anyway, I think this particular hand is on one far end of the spectrum of potential outcomes.

Here's a counterexample. Keep N/S hands exactly the same and change West to:
Kx♠
Jxxx♥
Kxx♦
xxxx♣

Now, on a trump lead, 3♦ is only 1 off and the defense would have to be fairly slick to defeat 4♠ (they must lead a club to start, or lead a diamond and then switch to ace and a club at trick 2).

Or:
Kxx♠
Jxx♥
Kxx♦
xxxx♣

Now there is no club ruff, so 4♠ makes and 3♦ is only 1 off on a trump lead.

There is no reason that the hand cannot be one of these examples and not the actual layout. We would make the game most of the time on layout 1 and all the time on layout 2. And I haven't even analyzed swapping North's Q♦ for some other useful honor, such as J♠.

Notice also that with only N/S visible, on the auction West is a favorite to hold both the spade K and the longer spades on the auction. The fact that East holds a side suit singleton, the K of spades, and longer spades, is just unfortunate.

Anyway I still think the game is maybe a slightly better bet if none of partner's HCP are in diamonds. With 2 or 3 HCP wasted in diamonds, maybe partner will refrain from doubling in this spot, recognizing the defensive value of 4-4-4-1 shape and the bad Q♦ flaw. It's the real negative adjustment on this hand. It cost us 1-2 tricks on offense and gained us nothing on defense.

Maybe we should send this hand (along with umpteen others) to Larry Cohen and see if he'll retract THE LAW for us. Don't hold your breath.

As Mike Lawrence would say, "Lovely game, this bridge."

[Statto]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-18, 21:56, said:

This is why I don't use the LOTT. (In fact I was even going to suggest I do a hypothetical analysis using LOTT before the answer was published, and thought better of it because I know so many people have so much disdain for it...)

You can refer to it if in doubt

[the hog]

I would certainly not pass this hand. I would bid 4S. As to Ben's possible 4D bid with a void, 4D for me would show 5/5 Ms. Ben, would you bid 4D on 4504? I doubt it.