[HighLow21]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-28, 09:21, said:

Actually the question is what X by opener in the seq.

1C - (1S) - 1NT - (2S)

X - ...

means.

My answer above gives the full explanation. *Absent a partnership agreement*, the double is for blood. End of discussion.

[Charlie Yu]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-28, 12:40, said:

My answer above gives the full explanation. *Absent a partnership agreement*, the double is for blood. End of discussion.

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

[aguahombre]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-March-28, 20:54, said:

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

This is true; but the double is still penalty...for those times when they don't have an eight-card fit or have otherwise made a mistake.

I realize someone declared the discussion ended, but oh well. And someone else will jump on the reference to the total trick concept in this forum, so both of us are being bad.

[P_Marlowe]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-28, 11:20, said:

So you decided to answer a totally different question than was asked without telling anyone and it's OK because you gave some reasons for your answer?
<snip>

No, I answered the original question, the answer was, what does the double mean,
but I answered in an inapprobriate way.

I would not have reacted as harsh as I did, if the shortcuted answer was pointed
out as flawed, due to its shortness ..., something I conceded on my own
on reflection.
No, it was claimed, that the agreement in question was claimed to be non standard,
which is always a claim made, if one has nothing to add., and only wants to make
some noise.

Sry, I nearly regreted my harsh response, but this reply showes, that I dont need
to regret is, since you did not really bother to read my post.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mgoetze]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-March-28, 20:54, said:

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

Regardless of whether the LOTT is right or wrong, it seems you have only heard half of it.

The LOTT as I know it says something like: the total number of tricks available to both sides in their respectively best denomination is equal to the sum of both sides' largest fits.

In this situation it is not unlikely that their best fit is 8 cards (spades) and ours is 7. The LOTT postulates then that it is possible that they can make 2♠= and we can make, say, 1NT=. But it is also possible that they have 2♠-1 and we have 1NT+1. The LOTT makes no claim as to which of these is more likely. Partner's double is saying he believes it is the latter rather than the former.

[mgoetze]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-29, 00:58, said:

No, I answered the original question, the answer was, what does the double mean,
but I answered in an inapprobriate way.

OK, I actually misunderstood you because you did not state your assumption at all. Your assumption is that if the direct double is takeout, then the reopening double must also be takeout. As it happens I disagree with this assumption. But really you need to state it explicitly when writing in the N/B forum.

[P_Marlowe]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-29, 03:50, said:

OK, I actually misunderstood you because you did not state your assumption at all. Your assumption is that if the direct double is takeout, then the reopening double must also be takeout. As it happens I disagree with this assumption. But really you need to state it explicitly when writing in the N/B forum.

Disagreement is Ok, and I agree, that posts in this section should be longer,
and that my original post was way to short.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[HighLow21]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-March-28, 20:54, said:

I still don't quite understand. Doubling their 8-card fit at 2 level is anti-LOTT.

Many excellent decisions in this game are anti-LOTT, because a lot of hands violate LOTT.

[phil_20686]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 19:37, said:

No. But partner's double of a suit in which he has already promised a stopper should almost always be for penalties.

This is not correct. The most common counter example is (1x) 1N (2x) P P X, which should be t/o orientated. The double in OP is played as penalties because partner had a perfectly good chance to t/o double spades on the previous round. If he didnt have a t/o double of one spade, it stands to reason he cannot have a t/o double of 2S.

gordontd, on 2012-March-21, 06:16, said:

I can't imagine bidding it with many 11-counts, and certainly not with a 12-count.

I think 8-11 is a pretty common range. It depends a little on your opening style. I beleive the general principle is that if partner has the minimum balanced hand planning to rebid 1N, you should not have a game even if he is maxium. 8-bad 12 therefore makes sense if your 1NT is 14-16 with a few upgrades. 8- bad 11 makes sense opposite 15-17 with a few upgrades. The minimum of the bid should give you safety opposite a typical opener. If partner only opens solid 12s it is fine to reduce the minimum to 7. If partner opens many 11 counts and some tens it is unwise to stretch to bid 1N, especially at teams, as it often provides an easy way for teh opponents to extract a penalty.

Antrax, on 2012-March-21, 23:28, said:

So sorry, I'm lost. Assuming I play in an environment where people do have their bids, should I still always pass this X with a balanced hand?

Yes.

One final point: Normally doubles should be symmetric, so that if dble is t/o from one player, it is also t/o from partner and vice versa. This is a rare exception that occurs because partner has already denied that he has a t/o double. Thus here it makes sense that a dble by opener should be t/o, even though a dble by the 1N bidder is penalty. In general t/o is much more important than penalty, and it is a very good thing if beginners assume that all doubles are for t/o, except for those exceptions where partners previous bidding makes it impossible for him to have a t/o double.

[phil_20686]

Referring to:
1c (1s) 1N (2S)
x

HighLow21, on 2012-March-28, 12:40, said:

My answer above gives the full explanation. *Absent a partnership agreement*, the double is for blood. End of discussion.

Strenuously disagree. This should be t/o. On general grounds all doubles should be t/o unless previous bidding renders that impossible.

[HighLow21]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-29, 17:16, said:

Referring to:
1c (1s) 1N (2S)
x


Strenuously disagree. This should be t/o. On general grounds all doubles should be t/o unless previous bidding renders that impossible.

I'm simply stating what the double means in Standard American, and/or Bridge Base Basic.

[daveharty]

I thought we were trying to keep the jargon to a minimum in this forum?

For those Novices and Beginners who are bewildered by the references to "LOTT", it stands for the "Law of Total Tricks". It is not a law in the sense of "legality" or "rules", but rather a statistical correlation between the total number of trumps held by the two partnerships and the total number of tricks available to them when playing in those fits. If that is confusing, it states, basically, that in a hand where NS have a 9-card heart fit and EW have a 8-card spade fit, then there will be 17 total tricks available to the two sides. Those tricks could be allocated in various ways; if, for example, NS could make 10 tricks with hearts as trumps, then EW could make only 7 tricks with spades as trumps (10 + 7 = 17). If, on the other hand, NS could make only 8 tricks with hearts as trumps, then EW could make 9 tricks with spades as trumps (8 + 9 = 17). The LoTT can therefore be used as a guide for competitive bidding; if you can estimate the total number of trumps (often you can do this with some accuracy from the auction), it can give you clues about things like How high should our side compete, or Should we double or bid one more, etc. One of the little corollaries of the LoTT is that it's rarely right to allow the opponents to play at the two level in an 8-card fit; this was what Charlie Yu was referring to when he said doubling the opponents at the two level in their 8-card fit was "anti-LoTT."

The preceding paragraph was a gross oversimplification, of course. There are lots of little adjustments to make to the "raw" trick count for things like "double fits" and "suit purity", and people will hotly debate how effective the LoTT actually is, but there is no question that over the past 25 years or so (since the publication of Larry Cohen's To Bid or Not to Bid, which popularized the LoTT, although Cohen didn't invent it) it has had a huge impact on how people approach competitive bidding. It's an intermediate subject, although I think there are a lot of bright beginners who would be interested in it. I am only posting this in case some N/Bs are scratching their heading thinking "LOTT? WTF?"

[HighLow21]

Just to follow up on what Dave was saying:

1. Law of Total Tricks is a startling revelation to a beginner or early intermediate who learns it. It has big implications for competitive bidding. For early users of it, it is a very effective weapon in making bidding decisions on "normal" competitive hands.
2. Early-mid intermediates should have it mastered, including all the adjustments. (There are many and a lot of them involve guesswork.)
3. Mid-late intermediates will realize that the Law is full of flaws and doesn't work a lot of the time. A LOT of the time. And thus, will use it as only one of a handful of tools for analyzing competitive bidding sequences. (In fact, the LAW is only exactly accurate about 40% of the time, and even being off by 1 trick can change the correct bidding decision in many cases.)

For instance, I just played a hand in which the opponents bid 6♠ in a competitive sequence. I had jumped to 5♣ over 1♠ holding:

♠ 6
♥ JT76
♦ --
♣ AKT76432

Left Hand Opponent bid 5♠ and partner supported me, to 6♣. Opener bid 6♠ and I sacrificed in 7♣. It was the right call and I knew it. LOTT would rarely tell you to bid 7 over 6, even though I could tell this deal had at least 20 trumps!

Now, the vulnerability was: we were not Vulnerable, they were. I therefore knew that if their slam makes (very likely since I have no defense), they make 750 + 500 + 180 = 1430. If it goes down (unlikely, looking at my hand), we make 100. But the most I could possibly go down was 5, losing 1 spade and 4 hearts (incredibly unlikely), for 1100.

It can also gain if one of the opponents shoots 7♠ and that goes down 1. Since LHO had a void in clubs, that was not unlikely, but barring a defensive error they would have to lose a heart or a diamond.

It should be noted that my partner left in anger when I bid 7♣, thinking it was a terrible mistake. It was not; 6♠ was unbeatable and 7♣ was only -3, or -500. That is an even better result for us than them bidding and making GAME.

It should be noted that the opponents held 10 spades and we held 12 clubs, so there were 10 + 12 = 22 trumps. The opponents had 12 tricks in spades and we had 10 tricks in clubs. 12 + 10 = 22. This time, the LAW was dead accurate, but many times it's not, and even if you practiced it, you might not believe that it's right to bid 7 over 6!

[jillybean]

WTF

[masse24]

daveharty, on 2012-March-30, 13:24, said:

I thought we were trying to keep the jargon to a minimum in this forum?

For those Novices and Beginners who are bewildered by the references to "LOTT", it stands for the "Law of Total Tricks". It is not a law in the sense of "legality" or "rules", but rather a statistical correlation between...

..."LOTT? WTF?"

As Dave alludes to in his reply, let me clarify "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, The LoTT", you're a Beginner.



THE GREAT OZ HAS SPOKEN!