Help
So I have just finished reading "I fought the Law" and found it to be conceptionally interesting. I have to admit the writing turned me off a good bit, and I thought it was horribly boring for the first half of the book.
Having said that, it has proven to be interesting that for the most part the FTL evaluation seems to be more accurate at predicting the number of tricks your side can win that the LAW (which never predicts your tricks anyway, only total tricks for both sides).
In considering how one might take advantage of the FTL evaluation method to modify ones bidding system, I found that, in fact, it has already been done for us in the ZAR hand evalaution. Here is what I mean.
I fought the law method only kicks in when a fit is found. It has the following key features. You add up the two shortest suits held by your side and subtract from 13. Then you figure out which of your HCP are "working" and add or subtract more tricks for every 3 point range with 18-21 being the range with no additions or deletions.
How does ZAR points work? Well it begins by weighing some honor cards more heavily (aces and kings), and then it adding twice as many points as cards in your longest suit plus one point each for the difference between your longest and shortest suit. Think about that for a minute. Since even 4333 gets eight points. consider 8 a base. In fact, consider 10 a base (as 4333 is rare, so consider only 8 as 2 point subtraction). So a hand like 5332 gets 11 points. For FTL the "ST = 5" if you had a fit, and partner had similar hand (for the record, if partner had a different doubleton, he would get a point added to the base as well, and the 2 points is roughly the trick FTL figures for ST = 2.
Give a hand 5431 and that 13 points (one partner), give is partner a 5431 with fit and different singleton, and that is 13. These totals are 6 above the base, and based upon "fit" responder can add 4 more points. That is a total of 10 above the base. That is two full levels higher in ZAR points. With ST = 2, that is also two level highers than the average starting point of level 9 with fit for FTL.
The correlations to points is not perfect, since ZAR uses a 5 point per level, 52 points for "game" and FTL uses 3 points per level and subtract one for each extra card short in the two short suits. But ZAR double counts short suits once fit is found.. once when second long is subtracted from short, and again when fit is found, 3 points for void, 2 points for singleton, 1 point for doubleton.
I maybe wrong, but both methods appear to attempt to quantify the basically the same values (Zar even dismisses some points as "not working").
Both ZAR (earlier) and FTL book evaluate essentially the following hand with spades 1-1.. (zar give ns all the spades)
Axxxxx
xxxxxxx
---
---
Jxxxx
---
xxxxxxx
---
Both hands make 7S. FTL explains this as 10 wp, three short suit so subtract number of cards less three from the third short suit from the total of the first two.. so 0-3 = -3. So the starting point is 13-3 or 16 tricks. With 10 working points (since KQ falls), you are 3 levels below the starting point of 18-21 (18-10 = 8, 8/3 = 2.67). 16 tricks minus 3 levels for too few hcp, equals 13 tricks.
ZAR explains it this way. 5 hcp, 2 control points, 19 + 19 distributional points, one point for spade jack, and add the differences in legnth between your long and short side suits, for another 24 points. This total comes to 70 zar points (67 to be in the grand range). If you add back the KQ of spades as FTL did, it would be well over 70 points (at least 73, depending on whcih player gets them).
Anyway, probably not important, but I found it interesting, since I find that ZAR works pretty well for me. Makes me wonder.
Fought the Law and ZAR Points...
#1
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2006-July-07, 12:26
--Ben--
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,341
- Joined: 2004-July-02
- Location:Millburn, New Jersey
- Interests:Rowing. Wargaming. Military history.
Posted 2006-July-07, 16:02
I agree that the first half of the book was far less interesting than the second. I think it was done that way to refute the LAW in detail. On their website Lawrence and Wirgren also explain the cases where the FTL method may be off.
As for ZAR points I think it awards too many points for distribution, before a fit is found. Even with the modified ZAR points I don't think it evaluates hands all that well. Axxxx J is much better than Jxxxx A. The last time I read Zars article there wasn't that big a difference in score.
Mike Lawrence took some heat because his book (the first half) was a bit rough on Larry Cohen. However, both Larry Cohen (in his 2 books on the LAW) and Marty Bergen (in one of his books) said the LAW was more accurate than the best players judgment, and they mocked various bidding decisions taken by top players (though they didn't mention names).
A very worthwhile read once you get to the 2nd half.
As for ZAR points I think it awards too many points for distribution, before a fit is found. Even with the modified ZAR points I don't think it evaluates hands all that well. Axxxx J is much better than Jxxxx A. The last time I read Zars article there wasn't that big a difference in score.
Mike Lawrence took some heat because his book (the first half) was a bit rough on Larry Cohen. However, both Larry Cohen (in his 2 books on the LAW) and Marty Bergen (in one of his books) said the LAW was more accurate than the best players judgment, and they mocked various bidding decisions taken by top players (though they didn't mention names).
A very worthwhile read once you get to the 2nd half.
#3
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2006-July-07, 22:08
Ben,
Definitely a revelation for sure tying in Zar and the FLT methodology.
I wonder what the scalability is for FTL versus Zar at the 2 and 3 levels where competitive bidding is geared around these days.
Definitely a revelation for sure tying in Zar and the FLT methodology.
I wonder what the scalability is for FTL versus Zar at the 2 and 3 levels where competitive bidding is geared around these days.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#4
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2006-July-07, 23:29
Scoring: IMP
Here is a hand I kibitzed from today. NS got to a lawful 4♠, with 11 trumps. EW have 9 trumps. Note, NS can make 9 tricks (8 if EW could ruff a heart), and EW can make 2 C if NS find their diamond ruff. Law predicts 20 tricks, actual 17 or if diamond ruff not found, 18.
As you can readily see, FTL would predict 9 tricks for NS especially if south discounts jack of spades (not adding to value) and at least one of the heart honors. But even with out discount, NS 20 points, ST = 4, 13-4 = 9 and no bonus for 18-21.
What about ZAR? North 29, South 19. South gets two more for KJ of spades, and 1 for doubleton. 19 plus 3 is 22. I would not add one for spade jack here for same reason that FTL doesn't. So it would be 21. 29 plus 21 = 50 or maybe 51 if you count the jack. So right at boarder for game. (Zar says 52 needed). North might upgrade one point for doubleton too, but that would be it. So ZAR and FTL seem to agree, LOTT is off.
--Ben--
#5
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2006-July-08, 01:27
What is FTL? 
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2006-July-08, 03:07
FTL = Faster Than Light
or in bridge terms - I Fought The Law (Lawrence)
or in bridge terms - I Fought The Law (Lawrence)
#7
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2006-July-08, 03:52
I suppose this "FTL" method is what Lawrence and Wirgren call SST/WP (Short Suit Totals/Working Points). It's the same as LTC except that it's downwards adjusted in case of duplication.
Not very original, thus, and besides the information you need is not available in practice. In particular, it doesn't make sense to compare it to the LOTT since it uses different covariates to predict a different outcome.
The SST/WP method is just postulated without any systematic evidense. The problems they present with the LOTT is what Cohen also admits in his own books. "I Fought the Law" is just a cruscade against the LOTT, and a very poor one that is.
It's the worst bridge book I ever read. The owner of the local bridge bookshop says the same, which is unusual - they usually talk about the books they sell in a more diplomatic (if not positive) tone.
Not very original, thus, and besides the information you need is not available in practice. In particular, it doesn't make sense to compare it to the LOTT since it uses different covariates to predict a different outcome.
The SST/WP method is just postulated without any systematic evidense. The problems they present with the LOTT is what Cohen also admits in his own books. "I Fought the Law" is just a cruscade against the LOTT, and a very poor one that is.
It's the worst bridge book I ever read. The owner of the local bridge bookshop says the same, which is unusual - they usually talk about the books they sell in a more diplomatic (if not positive) tone.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,341
- Joined: 2004-July-02
- Location:Millburn, New Jersey
- Interests:Rowing. Wargaming. Military history.
Posted 2006-July-08, 06:39
>I suppose this "FTL" method is what Lawrence and Wirgren call SST/WP (Short Suit Totals/Working Points). It's the same as LTC except that it's downwards adjusted in case of duplication.
Thats not quite right. They use an estimattion of short suits and adjust for HCP. Not quite the same thing, although it can be close.
>Not very original, thus, and besides the information you need is not available in practice. In particular, it doesn't make sense to compare it to the LOTT since it uses different covariates to predict a different outcome.
One of the main purposes of the book was to debunk the LAW. Their method is the other point of the book.
Also, the information frequently is available during competitive bidding. At least to some extent, and to a point where it can frequently be useful.
>The SST/WP method is just postulated without any systematic evidense.
They did generate a number of random hands (I think 2,000). I too would like to see a larger set, but they didn't just "postulate" they did show some evidence.
>The problems they present with the LOTT is what Cohen also admits in his own books. "I Fought the Law" is just a cruscade against the LOTT, and a very poor one that is.
It is a Crusade. Good! Cohen and Bergen in their books went around saying the LAW was better than the best players judgment. They were the ones who arrogantly touted the LAW. People blindly accept the LAW as 100% correct. The authors think its not that accurate in many cases and wanted to show that. They exposed the LAW as far less accurate than many think.
BTW, Kit Woolsey in his excellent MATCHPOINTS discusses the LAW 10 years before Cohen and pointed out its problems then.
>It's the worst bridge book I ever read. The owner of the local bridge bookshop says the same, which is unusual - they usually talk about the books they sell in a more diplomatic (if not positive) tone.
The first half was a bit dull. But the worst book?
Its actually an important book.
Understand why they included the first half (the "Crusade"), either read it or skip it, then read the 2nd half.
I've read many bridge books, some of them medicre. Some books will appeal to a player based on their level. The very first bridge books I read, before I had ever played a hand of bridge against people (as opposed to some hands on a bad freeware program) were Eddie Kantars Modern and Advanced Bridge Defense.
I didn't like them at the time.
I recently reread them and loved them, and recognized them as classics.
Thats not quite right. They use an estimattion of short suits and adjust for HCP. Not quite the same thing, although it can be close.
>Not very original, thus, and besides the information you need is not available in practice. In particular, it doesn't make sense to compare it to the LOTT since it uses different covariates to predict a different outcome.
One of the main purposes of the book was to debunk the LAW. Their method is the other point of the book.
Also, the information frequently is available during competitive bidding. At least to some extent, and to a point where it can frequently be useful.
>The SST/WP method is just postulated without any systematic evidense.
They did generate a number of random hands (I think 2,000). I too would like to see a larger set, but they didn't just "postulate" they did show some evidence.
>The problems they present with the LOTT is what Cohen also admits in his own books. "I Fought the Law" is just a cruscade against the LOTT, and a very poor one that is.
It is a Crusade. Good! Cohen and Bergen in their books went around saying the LAW was better than the best players judgment. They were the ones who arrogantly touted the LAW. People blindly accept the LAW as 100% correct. The authors think its not that accurate in many cases and wanted to show that. They exposed the LAW as far less accurate than many think.
BTW, Kit Woolsey in his excellent MATCHPOINTS discusses the LAW 10 years before Cohen and pointed out its problems then.
>It's the worst bridge book I ever read. The owner of the local bridge bookshop says the same, which is unusual - they usually talk about the books they sell in a more diplomatic (if not positive) tone.
The first half was a bit dull. But the worst book?
Its actually an important book.
Understand why they included the first half (the "Crusade"), either read it or skip it, then read the 2nd half.
I've read many bridge books, some of them medicre. Some books will appeal to a player based on their level. The very first bridge books I read, before I had ever played a hand of bridge against people (as opposed to some hands on a bad freeware program) were Eddie Kantars Modern and Advanced Bridge Defense.
I didn't like them at the time.
I recently reread them and loved them, and recognized them as classics.
#9
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2006-July-08, 07:46
ArcLight, on Jul 8 2006, 02:39 PM, said:
It is a Crusade. Good! Cohen and Bergen in their books went around saying the LAW was better than the best players judgment. They were the ones who arrogantly touted the LAW. People blindly accept the LAW as 100% correct.
If people really believe that the LAW is 100% accurate, or that it's always better than the best experts' judgement, they ceertainly need education. I agree that Cohen and Bergen are biased but it takes a naive reader not to recognize that. In any case, I don't think it's necessary to write a whole book in order to get that message through. A short article in The Bridge World, plus a copule of pages about the issue in the next version of The Comple Book of Overcalls (or some similar book) would have been enough.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#10
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2006-July-08, 07:50
I think "I fought the law" is not a very good book. It would have made a good long article somewhere.
Here is the problem, LOTT is very easy to estimate at the table in competitive auctions, and even the most clueless amoung us can easily apply it. There is no doubt whatsoever that LOTT has improved the competitive judgement of players who use it. Is it always right? Absolutely not. But even on www.ifoughtthelaw.com webpage the "statistics" show that it the number of tricks equal number of total trumps plus or minus 0.05. That is, the number of tricks over estimated on one hand is under estimated on the next, and the argument that double dummy play is required to get them is wrong in the FTL book too, because while declarer may not find double dummy line to make, the defense may not find double dummy defense to defeat (how many would find diamond ruff against a club contract in the hand i showed earlier in this thread?).
The problem with FTL is it is impossible or nearly impossible to figure out Short suit total on most auctions. Sure if partner uses usual 2NT and you have a singleotn in one of his suits, you know ST is about 1 (your singleton, partner has to have one, and there will be another doubleton, so 1+1-1 =1. But how many WP does partner have? This can be difficult at the table. Of course, after the hand is over, you can look and see what the WP and ST are.
Take again the hand I showed above, if north has a singleton somewhere, south's 4S jump would have been both lawful and dictated by FTL.
Ben
Here is the problem, LOTT is very easy to estimate at the table in competitive auctions, and even the most clueless amoung us can easily apply it. There is no doubt whatsoever that LOTT has improved the competitive judgement of players who use it. Is it always right? Absolutely not. But even on www.ifoughtthelaw.com webpage the "statistics" show that it the number of tricks equal number of total trumps plus or minus 0.05. That is, the number of tricks over estimated on one hand is under estimated on the next, and the argument that double dummy play is required to get them is wrong in the FTL book too, because while declarer may not find double dummy line to make, the defense may not find double dummy defense to defeat (how many would find diamond ruff against a club contract in the hand i showed earlier in this thread?).
The problem with FTL is it is impossible or nearly impossible to figure out Short suit total on most auctions. Sure if partner uses usual 2NT and you have a singleotn in one of his suits, you know ST is about 1 (your singleton, partner has to have one, and there will be another doubleton, so 1+1-1 =1. But how many WP does partner have? This can be difficult at the table. Of course, after the hand is over, you can look and see what the WP and ST are.
Take again the hand I showed above, if north has a singleton somewhere, south's 4S jump would have been both lawful and dictated by FTL.
Ben
--Ben--
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-July-08, 08:21
inquiry, on Jul 8 2006, 12:29 AM, said:
Scoring: IMP
Here is a hand I kibitzed from today. NS got to a lawful 4♠, with 11 trumps. EW have 9 trumps. Note, NS can make 9 tricks (8 if EW could ruff a heart), and EW can make 2 C if NS find their diamond ruff. Law predicts 20 tricks, actual 17 or if diamond ruff not found, 18.
As you can readily see, FTL would predict 9 tricks for NS especially if south discounts jack of spades (not adding to value) and at least one of the heart honors. But even with out discount, NS 20 points, ST = 4, 13-4 = 9 and no bonus for 18-21.
What about ZAR? North 29, South 19. South gets two more for KJ of spades, and 1 for doubleton. 19 plus 3 is 22. I would not add one for spade jack here for same reason that FTL doesn't. So it would be 21. 29 plus 21 = 50 or maybe 51 if you count the jack. So right at boarder for game. (Zar says 52 needed). North might upgrade one point for doubleton too, but that would be it. So ZAR and FTL seem to agree, LOTT is off.
i think this hand works find for LOTT bidders... e/w can take 9 tricks in clubs and, maybe, 9 tricks in hearts.. if n/s are down 1 doubled in 4♠, that's -100... if e/w take 9 in clubs, that's +110
my understanding of LOTT is that it's a tool to help you in competitive auctions.. it gives a starting point in evaluating these auctions... "let's see, if we have 9 diamonds and they have 8 spades, that's 17 total tricks.. if we're off one in 3♦ that means they're making 3 spades.. if they make exactly 2♠, we can make 3♦... even if we're down, it means they'd have scored more by being allowed to play 2♠"
whether or not that always works seems to miss the point... i think it's a sufficiently sound (and easy) way to decide whether "to bid or not to bid"
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2006-July-08, 09:24
Below I copy the EW hands from another thread. The hand at the bottom is W, in fourth position. The auction went:
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
The issue on that thread was whether the auction involved a psychic X and a surprising catch. I am not reopening that discussion. The hand seems useful here. Suppose that EW are allowed to inspect each others hands. What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right?
Originally in writing I got N and S reversed in my mind. I think I have it right now.
As I see it, if the ace of hearts is with N then NS can make 3 or 4 hearts depending mostly on the diamond split. If the ace of hearts is with S, the diamonds are 3-3 and the spades 4-3, the contract of 2H is in danger. Similarly, assume EW will not be allowed to play 3C undoubled (reasonable at mps). Will 3C be down only 1? Certainly there will be three clubs, one heart, one spade lost. It's far from clear that this is all.
Looking at both hands, I think that at mps 3C is probably a reasonable shot but I wouldn't be surprised to find it producing -300 against a partscore. Possibly this will be because the 16 total tricks are 9-7, but it may also be that the total is wrong.
I'm all for things like LOTT as general guidelines, but you frequently find players with things like OBEY THE LAW in caps on their profile. It's not one of the ten commandments.
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
Scoring: MP
Scoring: MP
The issue on that thread was whether the auction involved a psychic X and a surprising catch. I am not reopening that discussion. The hand seems useful here. Suppose that EW are allowed to inspect each others hands. What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right?
Originally in writing I got N and S reversed in my mind. I think I have it right now.
As I see it, if the ace of hearts is with N then NS can make 3 or 4 hearts depending mostly on the diamond split. If the ace of hearts is with S, the diamonds are 3-3 and the spades 4-3, the contract of 2H is in danger. Similarly, assume EW will not be allowed to play 3C undoubled (reasonable at mps). Will 3C be down only 1? Certainly there will be three clubs, one heart, one spade lost. It's far from clear that this is all.
Looking at both hands, I think that at mps 3C is probably a reasonable shot but I wouldn't be surprised to find it producing -300 against a partscore. Possibly this will be because the 16 total tricks are 9-7, but it may also be that the total is wrong.
I'm all for things like LOTT as general guidelines, but you frequently find players with things like OBEY THE LAW in caps on their profile. It's not one of the ten commandments.
Ken
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,060
- Joined: 2005-March-18
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-July-08, 09:32
Hi,
just a couple of comments.
The Law of Total Tricks was formulated by Verne
around 1966. (+- 3 years), i.e. it was around a couple
of years before it was mentioned by Kit Woolsey or
by Larry Cohen.
http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=a...r&f=samltt.html
The Law is a statistical Law, i.e. it does not claim
to be correct on every single deal, just on average.
Verne found this Law studing lots of deal,
i.e. it was "only" verified by an empirical study.
100.000 deals, if I remember the number correct.
Cohen himself points out, that there are adjusting factors,
which most people tend to ignore.
If you think Cohen / Bergen did mock the judgement of
all other good players, ... well it was advertisment, and
I would suggest, one should read the article by Harrison
Gray, were he does introduces LTC.
Gray says, that lesser mortals (naturally he includes himself)
need certain rules to get certain evaluation situations right
in comparison to the experts, who afterwards always can tell
you, why you should have made certain bids or why certain bids
were made.
With kind regards
Marlowe
just a couple of comments.
The Law of Total Tricks was formulated by Verne
around 1966. (+- 3 years), i.e. it was around a couple
of years before it was mentioned by Kit Woolsey or
by Larry Cohen.
http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=a...r&f=samltt.html
The Law is a statistical Law, i.e. it does not claim
to be correct on every single deal, just on average.
Verne found this Law studing lots of deal,
i.e. it was "only" verified by an empirical study.
100.000 deals, if I remember the number correct.
Cohen himself points out, that there are adjusting factors,
which most people tend to ignore.
If you think Cohen / Bergen did mock the judgement of
all other good players, ... well it was advertisment, and
I would suggest, one should read the article by Harrison
Gray, were he does introduces LTC.
Gray says, that lesser mortals (naturally he includes himself)
need certain rules to get certain evaluation situations right
in comparison to the experts, who afterwards always can tell
you, why you should have made certain bids or why certain bids
were made.
With kind regards
Marlowe
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-July-08, 10:24
kenberg, on Jul 8 2006, 10:24 AM, said:
Below I copy the EW hands from another thread. The hand at the bottom is W, in fourth position. The auction went:
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
Scoring: MP
What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right?
2♣... the bidding shows 8 hearts for n/s... assume over the xx that east had bid 2♣ (else there's no way for e/w to know of their 8 card fit, which means there's no way LOTT can be applied)... now there are 16 total trumps/tricks... over 2♥, west (or east) could reason, "if they make 2 hearts, we make 2 clubs... if they're off one, we make 3♣.. if we're off one, they make 3♥... so if we bid 3♣ doubled, off one, that's -100... they'd be +140 in that case, if allowed to play 2♥ making 3... there's also the fact that we might not be doubled... even so, if we're off 2 they can make a heart game... since we can't let them play in their 8 card fit, letting them play 2♥ is a long term losing proposition"
that may or may not work this hand... it doesn't really matter... imo, reasoning this way is a long term winner for less than expert players (and even some experts)
#15
Here is a hand I kibitzed from today. NS got to a lawful 4♠, with 11 trumps. EW have 9 trumps. Note, NS can make 9 tricks (8 if EW could ruff a heart), and EW can make 2 C if NS find their diamond ruff. Law predicts 20 tricks, actual 17 or if diamond ruff not found, 18.
As you can readily see, FTL would predict 9 tricks for NS especially if south discounts jack of spades (not adding to value) and at least one of the heart honors. But even with out discount, NS 20 points, ST = 4, 13-4 = 9 and no bonus for 18-21.
What about ZAR? North 29, South 19. South gets two more for KJ of spades, and 1 for doubleton. 19 plus 3 is 22. I would not add one for spade jack here for same reason that FTL doesn't. So it would be 21. 29 plus 21 = 50 or maybe 51 if you count the jack. So right at boarder for game. (Zar says 52 needed). North might upgrade one point for doubleton too, but that would be it. So ZAR and FTL seem to agree, LOTT is off.
i think this hand works find for LOTT bidders... e/w can take 9 tricks in clubs and, maybe, 9 tricks in hearts.. if n/s are down 1 doubled in 4♠, that's -100... if e/w take 9 in clubs, that's +110
my understanding of LOTT is that it's a tool to help you in competitive auctions.. it gives a starting point in evaluating these auctions... "let's see, if we have 9 diamonds and they have 8 spades, that's 17 total tricks.. if we're off one in 3♦ that means they're making 3 spades.. if they make exactly 2♠, we can make 3♦... even if we're down, it means they'd have scored more by being allowed to play 2♠"
whether or not that always works seems to miss the point... i think it's a sufficiently sound (and easy) way to decide whether "to bid or not to bid"
Sorry Jimmy, LOTT is way off on this hand.
NS have 11 spades, EW 9 clubs, 11 + 9 = 20.
Double dummy, NS have 9 tricks, EW have 8 (they lose 2D, 1D ruff, 1S, and a H). That is a total of 17 tricks.
NS should NOT bid 4S -1 to protect against 3C or 3H that is -1. The bidding was consistently north bidding spades and south jumping to 4S based upon five trumps with an aweful 5332 distribution.
However, you will note that I was not attacking LOTT in general, in fact, if you check my other post I said
#16
#17
don't know that i'd use the word "slaves," but suppose you hold
JTxx
Qxx
xxxxx
x
and your partner opens 1♠... what do you respond and why? or suppose you open 1nt with
AKxx
Kx
ATxx
QJxx
and your partner bids 2♥ (transfer)... do you super accept? if so, why?
my point is, a lot of modern bidding is based on bergen/cohen work (imo) and on LOTT, whether it admits it or not
#18
We will start with LOTT... EW have an 8 card club fit, NS have an 8 card heart fit. LOTT say with 16 trumps, there should be 16 tricks. EW however, have poor trumps, lack of purity here could hurt the total trick total. So I would guess that LOTT would predict 15 total tricks. If EW can make 9 tricks in clubs, NS should be able to make only 6 tricks in hearts. If NS can make 8 tricks in hearts, EW can make only 7 tricks in clubs.
Next ZAR. With a club fit, the zar point total is... 23 for west (including bonus 1 point for the short heart after club fit discovered) and 24 points for East. That total is 47. Zar says you need 52 for 4 level, and each level is worth "five points", so 52-5 = 47. This suggest there maybe a play for 9 tricks (the range is 47 to 51, so this is sketchy for 9).
Finally FTL. The ST = 4, calculating the working points is a little hard. The club queen is probably not working, subtract 2 pts. The heart king either is or is not working. With the opening bid to the right, the odds are slightly better that it is (and if hand behind has heart AK, maybe club queen is working after all). So lets just remove the club queen from the total (not seeing the hands, you would never figure that deduction). So the working points seem to be 17. To apply FTL, you subtract your ST from 13 (13-4 = 9), working point total base is 19-21. If you had 18-21 then 9 tricks would be limit. With 16-18 working points, you have to subtract a trick, so the estimate is 8 tricks for EW in clubs.
#19
The issue on that thread was whether the auction involved a psychic X and a surprising catch. I am not reopening that discussion. The hand seems useful here. Suppose that EW are allowed to inspect each others hands. What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right? (SNIP)
Looking at both hands, I think that at mps 3C is probably a reasonable shot but I wouldn't be surprised to find it producing -300 against a partscore. Possibly this will be because the 16 total tricks are 9-7, but it may also be that the total is wrong.
I'm all for things like LOTT as general guidelines, but you frequently find players with things like OBEY THE LAW in caps on their profile. It's not one of the ten commandments.
We will start with LOTT... EW have an 8 card club fit, NS have an 8 card heart fit. LOTT say with 16 trumps, there should be 16 tricks. EW however, have poor trumps, lack of purity here could hurt the total trick total. So I would guess that LOTT would predict 15 total tricks. If EW can make 9 tricks in clubs, NS should be able to make only 6 tricks in hearts. If NS can make 8 tricks in hearts, EW can make only 7 tricks in clubs.
Next ZAR. With a club fit, the zar point total is... 23 for west (including bonus 1 point for the short heart after club fit discovered) and 24 points for East. That total is 47. Zar says you need 52 for 4 level, and each level is worth "five points", so 52-5 = 47. This suggest there maybe a play for 9 tricks (the range is 47 to 51, so this is sketchy for 9).
Finally FTL. The ST = 4, calculating the working points is a little hard. The club queen is probably not working, subtract 2 pts. The heart king either is or is not working. With the opening bid to the right, the odds are slightly better that it is (and if hand behind has heart AK, maybe club queen is working after all). So lets just remove the club queen from the total (not seeing the hands, you would never figure that deduction). So the working points seem to be 17. To apply FTL, you subtract your ST from 13 (13-4 = 9), working point total base is 19-21. If you had 18-21 then 9 tricks would be limit. With 16-18 working points, you have to subtract a trick, so the estimate is 8 tricks for EW in clubs.
Looking at the hands, almost certainly the limit for EW is 8 tricks. You lose 1 heart (maybe 2), 1 spade, 3 clubs (unless you are very lucky). Any system that estimates EW has any sort of reasonable play for 9 tricks is a system in need of work, imo. Surely 7 tricks is more likely than 9. If some guidelines for LOTT suggest downgrading the initial 16 total tricks to maybe 15 or maybe 16, this seems right. It then would also seem to suggest not bidding 3C, which also may be right. Or maybe not, of course.
#20
don't know that i'd use the word "slaves," but suppose you hold
JTxx
Qxx
xxxxx
x
and your partner opens 1♠... what do you respond and why? or suppose you open 1nt with
AKxx
Kx
ATxx
QJxx
and your partner bids 2♥ (transfer)... do you super accept? if so, why?
my point is, a lot of modern bidding is based on bergen/cohen work (imo) and on LOTT, whether it admits it or not
I would bid both of those hands today the same way I would have bid them 20 years ago (some guys never learn, I guess), before anyone ever heard of LOTT.
2S in the first one because I have a decent hand in support of spades.
3S in the second one because I have a hand that might produce game opposite a hand that would pass 2S.
I realise Bergen says 3S with the first hand, and I guess he recommends 3H with the second. Bergen raises do work well at times. I don't dispute this, but I prefer not to play them. I am uncertain of how much Bergen/Cohen ideas have taken hold in the expert community. I certainly know of experts who do not play in the Bergen style.
1 User(s) are reading this topic
| ♠ | T972 |
|---|---|
| ♥ | K9 |
| ♦ | AJ7 |
| ♣ | 8762 |
What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right?
2♣... the bidding shows 8 hearts for n/s... assume over the xx that east had bid 2♣ (else there's no way for e/w to know of their 8 card fit, which means there's no way LOTT can be applied)... now there are 16 total trumps/tricks... over 2♥, west (or east) could reason, "if they make 2 hearts, we make 2 clubs... if they're off one, we make 3♣.. if we're off one, they make 3♥... so if we bid 3♣ doubled, off one, that's -100... they'd be +140 in that case, if allowed to play 2♥ making 3... there's also the fact that we might not be doubled... even so, if we're off 2 they can make a heart game... since we can't let them play in their 8 card fit, letting them play 2♥ is a long term losing proposition"
that may or may not work this hand... it doesn't really matter... imo, reasoning this way is a long term winner for less than expert players (and even some experts)
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#15
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2006-July-08, 11:01
luke warm, on Jul 8 2006, 09:21 AM, said:
inquiry, on Jul 8 2006, 12:29 AM, said:
Scoring: IMP
Here is a hand I kibitzed from today. NS got to a lawful 4♠, with 11 trumps. EW have 9 trumps. Note, NS can make 9 tricks (8 if EW could ruff a heart), and EW can make 2 C if NS find their diamond ruff. Law predicts 20 tricks, actual 17 or if diamond ruff not found, 18.
As you can readily see, FTL would predict 9 tricks for NS especially if south discounts jack of spades (not adding to value) and at least one of the heart honors. But even with out discount, NS 20 points, ST = 4, 13-4 = 9 and no bonus for 18-21.
What about ZAR? North 29, South 19. South gets two more for KJ of spades, and 1 for doubleton. 19 plus 3 is 22. I would not add one for spade jack here for same reason that FTL doesn't. So it would be 21. 29 plus 21 = 50 or maybe 51 if you count the jack. So right at boarder for game. (Zar says 52 needed). North might upgrade one point for doubleton too, but that would be it. So ZAR and FTL seem to agree, LOTT is off.
i think this hand works find for LOTT bidders... e/w can take 9 tricks in clubs and, maybe, 9 tricks in hearts.. if n/s are down 1 doubled in 4♠, that's -100... if e/w take 9 in clubs, that's +110
my understanding of LOTT is that it's a tool to help you in competitive auctions.. it gives a starting point in evaluating these auctions... "let's see, if we have 9 diamonds and they have 8 spades, that's 17 total tricks.. if we're off one in 3♦ that means they're making 3 spades.. if they make exactly 2♠, we can make 3♦... even if we're down, it means they'd have scored more by being allowed to play 2♠"
whether or not that always works seems to miss the point... i think it's a sufficiently sound (and easy) way to decide whether "to bid or not to bid"
Sorry Jimmy, LOTT is way off on this hand.
NS have 11 spades, EW 9 clubs, 11 + 9 = 20.
Double dummy, NS have 9 tricks, EW have 8 (they lose 2D, 1D ruff, 1S, and a H). That is a total of 17 tricks.
NS should NOT bid 4S -1 to protect against 3C or 3H that is -1. The bidding was consistently north bidding spades and south jumping to 4S based upon five trumps with an aweful 5332 distribution.
However, you will note that I was not attacking LOTT in general, in fact, if you check my other post I said
Quote
Here is the problem, LOTT is very easy to estimate at the table in competitive auctions, and even the most clueless amoung us can easily apply it. There is no doubt whatsoever that LOTT has improved the competitive judgement of players who use it. Is it always right? Absolutely not. But even on www.ifoughtthelaw.com webpage the "statistics" show that it the number of tricks equal number of total trumps plus or minus 0.05. That is, the number of tricks over estimated on one hand is under estimated on the next, and the argument that double dummy play is required to get them is wrong in the FTL book too, because while declarer may not find double dummy line to make, the defense may not find double dummy defense to defeat (how many would find diamond ruff against a club contract in the hand i showed earlier in this thread?).
--Ben--
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2006-July-08, 11:06
Actually they can perhaps find the club fit even w/o a 2C bid. After the auction continues with the opponents landing in 2H there is strong reason to believe that there is a minor suit fit and all that is needed is a way to force a choice. But I am allowing them to see each other's hands and even then I think it is uncertain whether they should compete to 3C. I suppose yes, but it could and well may go wrong.
Mostly my point is that judgment is called for here rather than a blind application of the Law, and I think that this is what is often needed. I would not criticize a partner for passing this out in 2H, nor would I criticize him for 3C doubled and down 2 (especially not, since I lured him into it with a somewhat bizarre TO double, but also I would imagine we might reach 3C if I pass over 1H but balance with a dbl when 2H is passed back to me). Playing 3CX might be right or wrong, and the law can help, but I think it is a mistake to put too much trust in it. Someone who never heard of LOTT would surely realize that selling to 2H is not to be done easily and also realize it could be wrong to go on. Perhaps a good use of LOTT here would be that it is very unlikey the trump total is 17, and this may suggest caution since even 16 tricks split 9-7 (against) will be bad. You will be doubled. There has to be some judgment as to the likelihood of -300.
Had the auction gone, as it probably should have,
P P 1H P
2H P P ?
then W will need to decide whether to balance. With the heart opening on his right he will promote the value of the king of hearts and, perhaps, will double. If the ace of hearts is to his left, his partner will be going down 2 doubled. If the ace is where it belongs, partner will perhaps get out for down 1 and a good board. LOTT doesn't tell you where the ace of hearts is.
These situations require us to make our best guess as to what is right. Becoming LOTT slaves can't be the best choice. At least it's not my choice.
Mostly my point is that judgment is called for here rather than a blind application of the Law, and I think that this is what is often needed. I would not criticize a partner for passing this out in 2H, nor would I criticize him for 3C doubled and down 2 (especially not, since I lured him into it with a somewhat bizarre TO double, but also I would imagine we might reach 3C if I pass over 1H but balance with a dbl when 2H is passed back to me). Playing 3CX might be right or wrong, and the law can help, but I think it is a mistake to put too much trust in it. Someone who never heard of LOTT would surely realize that selling to 2H is not to be done easily and also realize it could be wrong to go on. Perhaps a good use of LOTT here would be that it is very unlikey the trump total is 17, and this may suggest caution since even 16 tricks split 9-7 (against) will be bad. You will be doubled. There has to be some judgment as to the likelihood of -300.
Had the auction gone, as it probably should have,
P P 1H P
2H P P ?
then W will need to decide whether to balance. With the heart opening on his right he will promote the value of the king of hearts and, perhaps, will double. If the ace of hearts is to his left, his partner will be going down 2 doubled. If the ace is where it belongs, partner will perhaps get out for down 1 and a good board. LOTT doesn't tell you where the ace of hearts is.
These situations require us to make our best guess as to what is right. Becoming LOTT slaves can't be the best choice. At least it's not my choice.
Ken
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-July-08, 11:11
kenberg, on Jul 8 2006, 12:06 PM, said:
These situations require us to make our best guess as to what is right. Becoming LOTT slaves can't be the best choice. At least it's not my choice.
don't know that i'd use the word "slaves," but suppose you hold
JTxx
Qxx
xxxxx
x
and your partner opens 1♠... what do you respond and why? or suppose you open 1nt with
AKxx
Kx
ATxx
QJxx
and your partner bids 2♥ (transfer)... do you super accept? if so, why?
my point is, a lot of modern bidding is based on bergen/cohen work (imo) and on LOTT, whether it admits it or not
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#18
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2006-July-08, 11:19
kenberg, on Jul 8 2006, 10:24 AM, said:
Below I copy the EW hands from another thread. The hand at the bottom is W, in fourth position. The auction went:
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
The issue on that thread was whether the auction involved a psychic X and a surprising catch. I am not reopening that discussion. The hand seems useful here. Suppose that EW are allowed to inspect each others hands. What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right? (SNIP)
Looking at both hands, I think that at mps 3C is probably a reasonable shot but I wouldn't be surprised to find it producing -300 against a partscore. Possibly this will be because the 16 total tricks are 9-7, but it may also be that the total is wrong.
I'm all for things like LOTT as general guidelines, but you frequently find players with things like OBEY THE LAW in caps on their profile. It's not one of the ten commandments.
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
Scoring: MP
Scoring: MP
The issue on that thread was whether the auction involved a psychic X and a surprising catch. I am not reopening that discussion. The hand seems useful here. Suppose that EW are allowed to inspect each others hands. What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right? (SNIP)
Looking at both hands, I think that at mps 3C is probably a reasonable shot but I wouldn't be surprised to find it producing -300 against a partscore. Possibly this will be because the 16 total tricks are 9-7, but it may also be that the total is wrong.
I'm all for things like LOTT as general guidelines, but you frequently find players with things like OBEY THE LAW in caps on their profile. It's not one of the ten commandments.
We will start with LOTT... EW have an 8 card club fit, NS have an 8 card heart fit. LOTT say with 16 trumps, there should be 16 tricks. EW however, have poor trumps, lack of purity here could hurt the total trick total. So I would guess that LOTT would predict 15 total tricks. If EW can make 9 tricks in clubs, NS should be able to make only 6 tricks in hearts. If NS can make 8 tricks in hearts, EW can make only 7 tricks in clubs.
Next ZAR. With a club fit, the zar point total is... 23 for west (including bonus 1 point for the short heart after club fit discovered) and 24 points for East. That total is 47. Zar says you need 52 for 4 level, and each level is worth "five points", so 52-5 = 47. This suggest there maybe a play for 9 tricks (the range is 47 to 51, so this is sketchy for 9).
Finally FTL. The ST = 4, calculating the working points is a little hard. The club queen is probably not working, subtract 2 pts. The heart king either is or is not working. With the opening bid to the right, the odds are slightly better that it is (and if hand behind has heart AK, maybe club queen is working after all). So lets just remove the club queen from the total (not seeing the hands, you would never figure that deduction). So the working points seem to be 17. To apply FTL, you subtract your ST from 13 (13-4 = 9), working point total base is 19-21. If you had 18-21 then 9 tricks would be limit. With 16-18 working points, you have to subtract a trick, so the estimate is 8 tricks for EW in clubs.
--Ben--
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2006-July-08, 12:28
inquiry, on Jul 8 2006, 12:19 PM, said:
kenberg, on Jul 8 2006, 10:24 AM, said:
Below I copy the EW hands from another thread. The hand at the bottom is W, in fourth position. The auction went:
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
P P 1H X
XX P P 1S
2H P P P
Scoring: MP
| ♠ | T972 |
|---|---|
| ♥ | K9 |
| ♦ | AJ7 |
| ♣ | 8762 |
The issue on that thread was whether the auction involved a psychic X and a surprising catch. I am not reopening that discussion. The hand seems useful here. Suppose that EW are allowed to inspect each others hands. What does LOTT, or ZAR, or whatever say should be the proper contract? Is it right? (SNIP)
Looking at both hands, I think that at mps 3C is probably a reasonable shot but I wouldn't be surprised to find it producing -300 against a partscore. Possibly this will be because the 16 total tricks are 9-7, but it may also be that the total is wrong.
I'm all for things like LOTT as general guidelines, but you frequently find players with things like OBEY THE LAW in caps on their profile. It's not one of the ten commandments.
We will start with LOTT... EW have an 8 card club fit, NS have an 8 card heart fit. LOTT say with 16 trumps, there should be 16 tricks. EW however, have poor trumps, lack of purity here could hurt the total trick total. So I would guess that LOTT would predict 15 total tricks. If EW can make 9 tricks in clubs, NS should be able to make only 6 tricks in hearts. If NS can make 8 tricks in hearts, EW can make only 7 tricks in clubs.
Next ZAR. With a club fit, the zar point total is... 23 for west (including bonus 1 point for the short heart after club fit discovered) and 24 points for East. That total is 47. Zar says you need 52 for 4 level, and each level is worth "five points", so 52-5 = 47. This suggest there maybe a play for 9 tricks (the range is 47 to 51, so this is sketchy for 9).
Finally FTL. The ST = 4, calculating the working points is a little hard. The club queen is probably not working, subtract 2 pts. The heart king either is or is not working. With the opening bid to the right, the odds are slightly better that it is (and if hand behind has heart AK, maybe club queen is working after all). So lets just remove the club queen from the total (not seeing the hands, you would never figure that deduction). So the working points seem to be 17. To apply FTL, you subtract your ST from 13 (13-4 = 9), working point total base is 19-21. If you had 18-21 then 9 tricks would be limit. With 16-18 working points, you have to subtract a trick, so the estimate is 8 tricks for EW in clubs.
Looking at the hands, almost certainly the limit for EW is 8 tricks. You lose 1 heart (maybe 2), 1 spade, 3 clubs (unless you are very lucky). Any system that estimates EW has any sort of reasonable play for 9 tricks is a system in need of work, imo. Surely 7 tricks is more likely than 9. If some guidelines for LOTT suggest downgrading the initial 16 total tricks to maybe 15 or maybe 16, this seems right. It then would also seem to suggest not bidding 3C, which also may be right. Or maybe not, of course.
Ken
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2006-July-08, 12:41
luke warm, on Jul 8 2006, 12:11 PM, said:
kenberg, on Jul 8 2006, 12:06 PM, said:
These situations require us to make our best guess as to what is right. Becoming LOTT slaves can't be the best choice. At least it's not my choice.
don't know that i'd use the word "slaves," but suppose you hold
JTxx
Qxx
xxxxx
x
and your partner opens 1♠... what do you respond and why? or suppose you open 1nt with
AKxx
Kx
ATxx
QJxx
and your partner bids 2♥ (transfer)... do you super accept? if so, why?
my point is, a lot of modern bidding is based on bergen/cohen work (imo) and on LOTT, whether it admits it or not
I would bid both of those hands today the same way I would have bid them 20 years ago (some guys never learn, I guess), before anyone ever heard of LOTT.
2S in the first one because I have a decent hand in support of spades.
3S in the second one because I have a hand that might produce game opposite a hand that would pass 2S.
I realise Bergen says 3S with the first hand, and I guess he recommends 3H with the second. Bergen raises do work well at times. I don't dispute this, but I prefer not to play them. I am uncertain of how much Bergen/Cohen ideas have taken hold in the expert community. I certainly know of experts who do not play in the Bergen style.
Ken