[eagles123]

---

system is 2/1, south could have bid 2s first up or 1N I guess but whatever

thanks,

Eagles

[steve2005]

They missed a game, it is almost certainly not our hand. Let them play it.

[PhilG007]

eagles123, on 2018-January-30, 16:41, said:

---

system is 2/1, south could have bid 2s first up or 1N I guess but whatever

thanks,

Eagles

I would bid 2♠on the South hand. It's perfectly safe and it's cowardly not to contest the part score.
The part score area is where tournaments are won or lost.

[msjennifer]

Pass.I fail to understand why this problem has been posed at all.May be I am too junior to understand.I ,also, do not understand what the word TANK means in the context.

[Tramticket]

steve2005, on 2018-January-30, 21:54, said:

They missed a game, it is almost certainly not our hand. Let them play it.

Its match-points, so I don't worry about whether I am pushing them into a marginal game. (Opps have chosen to pass 1NT, so they must think that game is marginal at best).

Both pairs are non-vulnerable and this is the time to compete aggressively for the part-scores at match-points. Let's try and force them to make a three-level contract instead of a one-level contract. For me this is a Law (of Total Tricks) decision.

Note that we have a known eight-card spade fit and west bid 1NT in protecting seat and presumably has a few spades. East can't have passed with a strong hand and a stack of trumps - so there is little risk of being doubled in 2♠.

[gordontd]

msjennifer, on 2018-January-31, 01:17, said:

I ,also, do not understand what the word TANK means in the context.

Go into the think tank.

[el mister]

PhilG007, on 2018-January-31, 01:14, said:

I would bid 2♠on the South hand. It's perfectly safe and it's cowardly not to contest the part score.
The part score area is where tournaments are won or lost.

PhilG talking sense here - proof that the sun does indeed shine on a dog's arse every once in a while. 2S for me as well.

[MrAce]

msjennifer, on 2018-January-31, 01:17, said:

Pass.I fail to understand why this problem has been posed at all.

Never/Ever leave opponents to play 1 NT when your side is known to hold 8+ fit in a major suit.
In LOTT (Law of Total tricks) when they play NT, their trumps are considered to be a 7 card fit (at least) even though they are not playing a trump suit. (According to Larry Cohen, the author of the LOTT book)
7+8 =15, which means there are 15 available tricks theoretically.

How do these 15 tricks divide?

7 vs 8 = which means they make 1 NT and you make 2M. (-90 vs +110)
6 vs 9 = which means they go down 1 while you make 2M+1 (+50 vs +140) or +100 vs +140 if you double their 1 NT.
5 vs 10= which means they go down 2 while you make 2M+2 (+100 {+300 if you dbl them} vs +170 or +420 if you actually bid the game)
8 vs 7 = they make +1 vs your down 1 (-120 vs -50/100 if doubled)
9 vs 6 = they make +2 vs your down 2 (-150 or -400 vs -100 or -300 if doubled)
etc etc..

Nothing works % 100 of course. So when you ask why this was posted as a problem, I expect bidding 2♠ was a loser on this particular deal, but predicting this never changed my replies in BBF. Because as you see above, leaving to 1 NT is a big time loser in long run.

I hope this helps how to use the LOTT and why people create so many convention to find a major fit over their NT. (And do not forget, your side may have more than just 8 card fit, pd may hold a weak 6 carder that he did not want to bid again or side double fit)
Add to this other factors, such as comfort of declaring vs defending (especially low level contract defense and how hard to defend 1 NT contracts) etc etc...

BID!!!

[FelicityR]

I have begun using with my regular partner 2♠ as a constructive raise 8-11 so wouldn't have bid 2♠ direct but would have bid a forcing 1NT first followed by 2♠. [I agree that may have changed the auction.] That said, The Law of Total Tricks is a reliable tool for part scores and major suit games and should be used as often as possible as MrAce has kindly demonstrated. It is not infallible and very occasionally you will end up with bad scores, but they will be heavily outweighed by the good scores you generate by using it at each and every opportunity.

[NickRW]

At these colours and scoring, easy bid.

Different colours or scoring, then it is a harder problem.

[ggwhiz]

I think 2♠ is justified at mp's to let east reconsider and play in 3 of a suit instead of 1nt.

-50 or -100 could win the board and we might even go plus. If they bid to game and make it they may have to justify it to the director.

[0deary]

Pass

Not the right time to use “the law"

North and West have the points so either would struggle- playing away from their suits whilst defenders use their tempi to good effect

If South bid 2S now then certainly East lost the option to play in 1N. But East now has two options because South is so weak: 2N or X

The weaker Wests NT the more East has to beat North honours. So with a weak NT I’d expect East have the best of both worlds: the effective 2N they already had plus now the X, and going for -300 will lose all the match points

[GrahamJson]

A balancing 1NT is possibly the most ill defined bid in the book. Whilst players may play that it shows 13-15, say, or some other range, they are often forced to use it on stronger hands, or unbalanced hands, simply because no other option appeals. There is therefore a good possibility that 1NT is not oppo’s best spot. Maybe they should be in three, with both oppo having taken a conservative view. Or maybe they have an eight card, or even longer, heart fit. Reopening might just allow then to find the right spot. One thing I do know is that partner is not holding a treasure trove as he surely would have bid again if all he needed was a queen opposite.

If I’m worth 2S now then I should have bid it immediately. Having decided it was not worth a raise before nothing has happened to make it worth it now. A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

[PhilG007]

el mister, on 2018-January-31, 04:59, said:

PhilG talking sense here - proof that the sun does indeed shine on a dog's arse every once in a while. 2S for me as well.

All compliments are accepted....even grudging ones(!)

[PhilG007]

el mister, on 2018-January-31, 04:59, said:

PhilG talking sense here - proof that the sun does indeed shine on a dog's arse every once in a while. 2S for me as well.

Some dog....some arse (!)

[PhilG007]

GrahamJson, on 2018-January-31, 15:37, said:

A balancing 1NT is possibly the most ill defined bid in the book. Whilst players may play that it shows 13-15, say, or some other range, they are often forced to use it on stronger hands, or unbalanced hands, simply because no other option appeals. There is therefore a good possibility that 1NT is not oppo’s best spot. Maybe they should be in three, with both oppo having taken a conservative view. Or maybe they have an eight card, or even longer, heart fit. Reopening might just allow then to find the right spot. One thing I do know is that partner is not holding a treasure trove as he surely would have bid again if all he needed was a queen opposite.

If I’m worth 2S now then I should have bid it immediately. Having decided it was not worth a raise before nothing has happened to make it worth it now. A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

"Part scores must be contested"
-Maurice Harrison-Gray 1960s Britsh International Player

[gordontd]

GrahamJson, on 2018-January-31, 15:37, said:

A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

But your partner's expectations of your hand do get lower.

[Tramticket]

GrahamJson, on 2018-January-31, 15:37, said:

If I’m worth 2S now then I should have bid it immediately. Having decided it was not worth a raise before nothing has happened to make it worth it now. A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

There is a fundamental misconception here. I agree that nothing has happened to make your hand stronger, but something has happened to change your objectives.

Case 1

The auction 1♠, (Pass), 2♠ is an uncontested auction. In an uncontested auction your objectives are:
- Bid as a partnership to the optimum strain and level, to a contract that you expect to make most of the time.
- You value your assets based on their playing strength in the context of the bidding so far. The valuation will tend to be based on high card strength adjusted for distribution.
- Communicate accurately your strength and shape to allow your partner to make useful judgments.

Case 2

The auction 1♠, (Pass), Pass, (1NT); Pass, (Pass), 2♠ is a competitive auction. In competition your objectives are:
- Bid to a contract that will score better than the opponents' contract.
- Prevent the opponents' from bidding to a contract that will score better than your contract.
- Use the Law of Total Tricks (LoTT) as a further method to judge the relative value of the hand in competition, particularly for part-score hands.
- Communicate your suit length to partner to allow partner to make effective LoTT decisions.

Please re-read Mr Ace's excellent LoTT analysis of the decision process on this deal. It doesn't rely on you bidding to your best making contract. Often, it will be sufficient to bid to a non-making contact and concede less than you would concede if the opponents made their contract.

[GrahamJson]

I notice that I missed a key fact; that we’re playing pairs, not teams. Given this I agree that 2S is reasonable. However I don’t think I would bid it if RHO had had a long think.

Incidentally, the LOTT only applies when comparing two suit contracts, not a suit vrs NT.

[Tramticket]

GrahamJson, on 2018-February-01, 03:36, said:

Given this I agree that 2S is reasonable.

GrahamJson, on 2018-February-01, 03:36, said:

However I don’t think I would bid it if RHO had had a long think.

Interesting whether this should make a difference? What is he thinking about?
- Is he close to inviting?
- Or is he unbalanced? And considering taking out into 3♣/♦? (I'm assuming that most players will transfer with a five-card heart suit).

If he is close to inviting, it can't do any harm to push them up a level. (I find it hard to believe that they will double our eight-card fit at the two level).

If he considered playing in 3m and rejected that option, I am happy to push them in that direction. I want to nudge them out of 1NT.