[TimG]

 fred, on 2012-March-12, 18:45, said:

Also note, perhaps needless to say, that we don't pay that much attention to "The Law" and that it is very rare for us to overcall with a 4-card suit.

I know that the law of total tricks has its non-supporters and that there have been books written disputing the usefulness of following the law. But, this quote by Fred has me wondering just how much reliance there is on the law of total tricks in expert circles. It seems to me that there is still "9 trumps = 3 level safety" sort of thinking amongst experts even if they are not counting everyone's trumps and applying adjustments. Is Law of Total Tricks thinking passe?

[CSGibson]

can we get a link to the thread to put the quote in context?

I use the law frequently in competitive situations, but not religiously.

[TimG]

 CSGibson, on 2012-August-02, 12:07, said:

can we get a link to the thread to put the quote in context?

The quote was in the context of making a (preemptive, though not bust) double raise of a major suit overcall with 3-card support. I think the auction was (1D)-1H-(1S)-3H and advancer was 2326.

I'm not really interested in the merits of this particular raise with respect to "The Law", I'm more interested in the expert opinion of "The Law" in general. Though I did think the bread and butter of "The Law" was exactly in this sort of competitive situation.

[ArtK78]

 CSGibson, on 2012-August-02, 12:07, said:

can we get a link to the thread to put the quote in context?

I use the law frequently in competitive situations, but not religiously.

Does that mean that you don't pray when you use the Law?

[CSGibson]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-02, 12:36, said:

Does that mean that you don't pray when you use the Law?

Even when I was more religious, I knew better than to include deity as an active participant in games. But my meaning (as I suspect you know) was that I reserve the right to think for myself instead of just automatically counting trumps and competing without regard to other considerations.

[JLOGIC]

 TimG, on 2012-August-02, 07:14, said:

I know that the law of total tricks has its non-supporters and that there have been books written disputing the usefulness of following the law. But, this quote by Fred has me wondering just how much reliance there is on the law of total tricks in expert circles. It seems to me that there is still "9 trumps = 3 level safety" sort of thinking amongst experts even if they are not counting everyone's trumps and applying adjustments. Is Law of Total Tricks thinking passe?

If the law = more often than not, compete to the 3 level with 9 trumps depending on a myriad of other factors, then yes. If that is not what the law means then no. I mean the law wasn't straight up fictional, it is often/usually right to compete to the 3 level with 9 trumps especially when the opps are only at the 2 level. It is also often wrong to compete on a misfit hand, and more likely to be right to compete if they also have a big fit. These things are all true.

I would definitely say that a majority of the time that I compete to the 3 level over their 3 level contract I have an extra trump (especially at imps).

[nigel_k]

I'm not a fan of the law (and that's putting it mildly), but it should be noted that the law does not say you should have nine trumps to bid to the three level. If they have eight spades and you have eight hearts, the law says that either 2♠ or 3♥ is making. It is generally right to bid 3♥ in that situation, especially if you do it early to maximise the chance of them making a mistake.

[dake50]

They've bid 3H. I think 18 trumps so I bid 3S.
RHO also thinks 18 that may be 8 for Spades 10 for Hearts so 4H.
Now partner also thinking 18 maybe 10-8 bids 4S.
Now LHO agrees 4S may make so 5H is cheap.
So this decision was REALLY bid to 5H-X.
Was some "law" reasoning wrong??

[inquiry]

Check how many experts play this...

1♠ - pass - 3♠

or

1♥ - dbl - 3♥
or similar as weak with four card support.

or 1M-p-4M as pretty much weak with five card support.


Would you consider these treatment Lawful? (based on law).

[Yu18772]

 inquiry, on 2012-August-02, 21:10, said:

Check how many experts play this...
1♠ - pass - 3♠
or
1♥ - dbl - 3♥
or similar as weak with four card support.
or 1M-p-4M as pretty much weak with five card support.
Would you consider these treatment Lawful? (based on law).

Preemptive weak raises have an extra value of just that - preempt, and even so you wont find a lot of experts that would bid them religiously at any vulnerability and any distribution......its ill advised for example to raise 1♠ to 3 with xxxx,KQx,xxx,xxx red vs white. So even with the additional value of preempt - good players still use judgement. Some authors call judgement "adjustments" some call it "hand (re)evaluation" some "common sense", but essentially these are the same. It is easier to convey the idea and convince less experienced players to use it if you present it as "law" and an ordered list of "adjustments", than just list factors that come into consideration when you are competing - which will improve the judgement of these players, just because it makes them pay attention to some of the relevant info they weren't using before.
Experts use this kind of logic and these factors in competetive situation regardless of the law concept. They dont think "I have extra trump - so I am protected by law", they reevaluate their hand with every round of bidding, and extra trump length is one of the things that typically makes your hand better for offense....just like holding tricks in opponents trump makes your hand better for defense etc...another important factor is ow likely you to get doubled? MP or IMPs?
So using the law will either improve or worsen your results, based on what type of factors influenced your bidding before it - if trump length, position of honors and vulnerability are something you neglected and the "law" gets you to consider them - by all means be lawfull, if this is something you used to account for, but now would bid to lawfull level based on trumps count alone -this is unlikely to improve your results

Personally, I find that calling something that describes only a portion of cases as "law" is misleading - math laws hold till shown otherwise, and this one was shown otherwise plenty of times.....so at best it is a guideline.
Yu

[rhm]

 Yu18772, on 2012-August-03, 01:05, said:

... - math laws hold till shown otherwise...

You have a strange understanding what math is about

Rainer Herrmann

[Yu18772]

 rhm, on 2012-August-03, 01:41, said:

You have a strange understanding what math is about

Rainer Herrmann

Really? Why dont you enlighten me please?
Yu

[rhm]

 Yu18772, on 2012-August-03, 02:13, said:

Really? Why dont you enlighten me please?
Yu

First of all in math there are theorems not laws.
Theorems are proven and once proven must hold forever. This is a major difference to natural sciences
If unproven it's at best a conjecture.
Nothing is build in math based on conjectures, even if nobody was able to disprove a conjecture.
So claiming "math laws hold till shown otherwise" is precisely how math does not work and it is precisely what differentiates math from natural sciences.

Of course sometimes if you can prove or disprove a conjecture it may have far reaching consequences.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

 dake50, on 2012-August-02, 20:27, said:

They've bid 3H. I think 18 trumps so I bid 3S.
RHO also thinks 18 that may be 8 for Spades 10 for Hearts so 4H.
Now partner also thinking 18 maybe 10-8 bids 4S.
Now LHO agrees 4S may make so 5H is cheap.
So this decision was REALLY bid to 5H-X.
Was some "law" reasoning wrong??

Yes.

The first line is usually fine, bid 3S.

The second is twisted, but with possibly the correct answer. 18 means :
1) if they make 10 for 170, we make 8 for 2 off, and this is usually bad. Only OK if they don't double and we are not vulnerable
2) if they make 9, for 140, so bid 4H and we make 9 for one off, and that's OK for a better score unless we are vulnerable and they double
3) if they make 8, for one off, we make 10 and get our game : so bid game as it scores more
Assign weights to the 3 lines, maybe 60% for the 9-9 trick split and 20% for each of the others, and see what the expected outcomes are for making the bid as opposed to passing or doubling.
All lines may lead to the same conclusion, but vulnerability must be considered (no point in -500 when they would otherwise get +170), and the indications of high card strength (if you have all the values you bid game anyway, and if they have more than you the expected penalties become severe).

The third line is twisted and with possibly the wrong conclusion. The legal thoughts are :
1) 18 means if they make 10, we make 8, and unless adverse vulnerability that's OK, so bid 4S
2) if they make 9, we make 9, so by bidding 4S I am trading a positive for a negative. At any vulnerability, so don't bid it.
3) if they make 8 we make 10, so while our game makes, double perhaps scores better at this vulnerability

The fourth line is definitely wrong.
1) If 4S makes 10, 5H is going 3 off for 800 or 500. OK only if favourable vulnerability, bad on all other.
2) If they make 9, we are trading a positive for a negative
3) if they make 8, we are trading a positive for a negative

You have to do the sums, and it depends on vulnerability. Assume they are going to double you when you overbid (they always double me).

It also depends on your expectation of the hcp split between you and them (eg do you have 6 or 10 hcp opposite partner's opening?), and if you know from the bidding that they have values sitting on top of yours, or vice versa. The expectation is only 9 tricks - 9 tricks if points and positional values are equal. If not, instead of considering the results for 10-8, 9-9, and the 8-10 trick split, you need to work out for example the results from 9-9, 8-10, and 7-11. This now brings in the possibility of your 3S bid pushing them into a very good game they might not otherwise bid.

While you should consider all the expected scores from the expected permutation of trick splits, and assign weights to give your the overall expectation of success, a rule of thumb is if all is equal :
a) bid to your legal level if you have the higher ranking suit,
b) bid to one higher than your level if needed and you have the lower ranking suit,
c) double them if they bid higher than you.

Also remember that you can only estimate the total number of tricks. While you may know you have a 9 card fit, theirs might not be.
And that doubling opponents in 3H does not go down well with team-mates if it makes 9 tricks.

[dake50]

Exactly.!
Some "other than *law*" reasons which you listed.

[Yu18772]

 rhm, on 2012-August-03, 03:15, said:

First of all in math there are theorems not laws.

Semantics of terminology, but ok...though its the "law of large numbers" and " as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality..." - I dont mind being in the same boat with that guy.

 rhm, on 2012-August-03, 03:15, said:

Theorems are proven and once proven must hold forever. This is a major difference to natural sciences

Theorems are proven under a certain set of axioms, and hold only within this set of assumptions and as long as the logical inference rules used to prove it are valid .....a mathematical proof for a theorem that is accepted today, may potentially later be disputed or shown to be incomplete. Nothing assumed to hold forever, even in math, if a hole in logic can be shown - assumption that something in the proof may had been overlooked and that someday a smarter person may point that out is kind of the basis of all scientific philosophy - including the queen.


Yu

[pigpenz]

 CSGibson, on 2012-August-02, 12:53, said:

Even when I was more religious, I knew better than to include deity as an active participant in games. But my meaning (as I suspect you know) was that I reserve the right to think for myself instead of just automatically counting trumps and competing without regard to other considerations.

Chris luckily your up in Portland, down here in Northern California people go whacko over GOD and GUNS

[bluecalm]

The Law is very useful for beginners and completely useless for advanced+ players.
One Polish super star couldn't believe people actually use it. I can't either