[shevek]

---

IMPs
Under pressure, I failed the test by passing as North for -620. Would you?

Nice auction by EW.
Auctions at other tables allowed North in. Such as
(1♣) - 1♠ - (X) - 3♠.

Opening 1♥ is clearly right. Even so,
(1♥) - 1♠ - (2♠) - 3♠, etc.

Or North doubled a 3♠ splinter for the same +620.
There's a lot to be said for the direct approach by our opponents.

A few E-Ws found the save in 5♣ after a fit-showing 3♣ by West.

[The_Badger]

when in doubt, bid 4H over 4S

I think the tournament director would be called at that juncture

[The_Badger]

shevek, on 2017-November-06, 21:44, said:

---

IMPs
Under pressure, I failed the test by passing as North for -620. Would you?
Nice auction by EW.

You were gazumped. I would trust my partner not to come into the auction after a 3rd in hand opener with tram tickets just for a lead at equal vulnerability, especially vulnerable, so would take a chance and bid 4♠ on this hand, even with its horrible shape. I feel it is more difficult for the opening bidder and responder to work out if their 1♥ - 4♥ is a solid auction or a pre-emptive auction, and obviously I'd rather put them to a guess than duck out without a squeak. If they are making 4♥, you can accept a two trick loss doubled for a profit, and to me that's playing the odds.

[croquetfan]

and if partner has tram tickets you have no defence

[AnnC8]

did you mean bid 4s over 4h?

[miamijd]

I think you were badly fixed. I'd have passed too, but not without some trepidation, because as Edgar Kaplan noted a long time ago, 4H is a transfer to 4S.

Cheers,
Mike

[dsLawsd]

Bidding 4S makes sense versus 5 card majors, but not necessarily with ACOL or similar light openings. You could be -200 or more instead of plus 100.

Bad luck. With a singleton heart I would bid (or at matchpoints)

[cherdano]

Good 4♥ bid.

[msjennifer]

I guess almost all players with your hand would have passed.This raises a big point.Is , whether there is no difference between a vulnerable overcall in the 2nd Seat and that in the 4th seat.My feeling is there should be.We do take this difference into account and assuming a three card fit,we count the losers.In the given South hand there are 6 losers only and the hand is much better than a normal overcall which the partner will assume to have 7or 8 losers and not knowing whether it is a constructive hand or a lead directing overcall belonging to the second category.The South hand is just a wee bit short of a TOD and bidding spades later.However, we have a solution we bid 2S as an “ intermediate “ bid falling between an Acol opening of 2S and a simple 1S overcall,( I know quite a few will give this treatment a thought and the rest pooh pooh it).We have found that this works,Inthe present hand which N holds since the support is QJxx the hand has 8 losers and for us it is an easy 4S bid.Whether to double 5C/H or Pass is left to South.
The EW pair has really created a genuine problem for the North.It is just too difficult for him to decide his bid with the present “Usual” definition of an one level
overcall by South.

[sfi]

msjennifer, on 2017-November-08, 00:07, said:

I guess almost all players with your hand would have passed.

Not in Australia. I would expect 4S to be the majority call here - we like to (over)bid.

[The_Badger]

msjennifer, on 2017-November-08, 00:07, said:

I guess almost all players with your hand would have passed.This raises a big point.Is , whether there is no difference between a vulnerable overcall in the 2nd Seat and that in the 4th seat.My feeling is there should be.We do take this difference into account and assuming a three card fit,we count the losers.In the given South hand there are 6 losers only and the hand is much better than a normal overcall which the partner will assume to have 7or 8 losers and not knowing whether it is a constructive hand or a lead directing overcall belonging to the second category.The South hand is just a wee bit short of a TOD and bidding spades later.However, we have a solution we bid 2S as an “ intermediate “ bid falling between an Acol opening of 2S and a simple 1S opening ( I know quite a few will give this treatment a thought and the rest pooh pooh it).We have found that this works,Inthe present hand which N holds since the support is QJxx the hand has 8 losers and for us it is an easy 4S bid.Whether to double 5C/H or Pass is left to South.
The EW pair has really created a genuine problem for the North.It is just too difficult for him to decide his bid with the present “Usual” definition of an one level
overcall by South.

Just my opinion, but this is an over-analysis. At equal vulnerability, vulnerable, I just use LOTT-1 as the trick expectation level in a ding-dong 4♥ vs. 4♠ slugfest. It's surprising how many times if one side is making game, the other side can make at least eight tricks.

[msjennifer]

sfi, on 2017-November-08, 00:13, said:

Not in Australia. I would expect 4S to be the majority call here - we like to (over)bid.

A very pleasing,nice and bold attitude down yonder.I wish I lived there and bid “ one for the road “ perhaps.

[msjennifer]

The_Badger, on 2017-November-08, 00:45, said:

Just my opinion, but this is an over-analysis. At equal vulnerability, vulnerable, I just use LOTT-1 as the trick expectation level in a ding-dong 4♥ vs. 4♠ slugfest. It's surprising how many times if one side is making game, the other side can make at least eight tricks.

I ,entirely, agree that LOTT gives a correct assessment in almost all cases.It is therefore easy to use since practically all advanced ( but unknown) players know it.The treatment given by me “ May” be worth considering in an established partnership.

[GrahamJson]

msjennifer, on 2017-November-08, 01:43, said:

I ,entirely, agree that LOTT gives a correct assessment in almost all cases.It is therefore easy to use since practically all advanced ( but unknown) players know it.The treatment given by me “ May” be worth considering in an established partnership.

But doesn’t this board show a failure of LOTT.? NS have nine trumps and EW eight, giving a total trump count of 17, yet both sides can make ten tricks. It shows how LOTT can fall short when a side has a fit in two suits.

[gszes]

There are advantages/disadvantages to ALL bidding styles. The N hand has a ridiculous problem if they regularly overcall for lead directional purposes. If the partnership is usually sound (ie somewhere close to an opening bid) they will not be able to compete as much but that style allows for a much easier 4s bid by N. There is nothing inherently wrong with passing even if it means you lost a lot of imps on that board if it allows your partnership to reap benefits on other boards. Choose your style of play and have no regrets when bad things happen. Change your style when too many bad things keep happening (I am not sure but I think that is called learning).

[Winstonm]

GrahamJson, on 2017-November-08, 11:37, said:

But doesn’t this board show a failure of LOTT.? NS have nine trumps and EW eight, giving a total trump count of 17, yet both sides can make ten tricks. It shows how LOTT can fall short when a side has a fit in two suits.

LOTT describes the number of combined tricks when each side plays in its best fit. In this case, the best fits are clubs (9 cards) and spades (9 cards) for 18 total tricks, and the purity of the fits (no wastage in opps suits) along with double fits is what raises the total.

Given a minimum of 18 tricks, if one side can make 10 tricks the other has a valuable sacrifice of down 2 (-500) with 8 tricks so I would say LOTT suggests a further bid.

LOTT is not perfect but it helps if it is used correctly.