[jogs]

 akwoo, on 2013-September-02, 22:05, said:

I think it is definitely useful to view the Law of Total Tricks as a first approximation to the Law of Total Losers (the total number of tricks lost by the two sides in their contracts is the sum of the shortest suit lengths in each of the four suits).

When those nasty opponents preempt, sometimes it is our only tool available for approximation. While we often don't know the total trumps, we rarely know the total of our short suits and know even less often about the total of their short suits.

[blackshoe]

 akwoo, on 2013-September-02, 22:05, said:

I think it is definitely useful to view the Law of Total Tricks as a first approximation to the Law of Total Losers (the total number of tricks lost by the two sides in their contracts is the sum of the shortest suit lengths in each of the four suits).

Whence comes this "Law of Total Losers"?

[jdeegan]

 jogs, on 2013-September-02, 09:10, said:

The game of bridge is complex. If it were easy the game would be solved
and uninteresting.
Cohen was too absolute in stating the relationship of total tricks equal to total
trumps. Lawrence is also wrong in his claim that there is no relationship
between tricks and trumps. It is somewhere in between.

Back to the board where North should probably double.

---

Exchange the location of the ♠6 and ♥6. Now 5♣ is unbeatable.

---

IMO your comments indicate you know more about bidding than anyone else on this thread. That said, the failure of the North hand to double with the worst playing hand in the history of any major religion should be properly noted.

[barmar]

 jogs, on 2013-September-02, 11:25, said:

Trumps is just one of many variables for estimating tricks.

And Cohen discusses some of them. His books on the LOTT mention adjustments that you should make, such as reducing the number of total tricks when holding lower honors in the opponents' suit. It's also well known that the accuracy of the LOTT goes down significantly at the 5 level and above.

Regarding the hand where North "should double". Sometimes doubled contracts make, that doesn't mean doubling was wrong. There's an old maxim: If you don't give away a few doubled contracts, you're not doubling enough; conversely, if you don't go down in doubled contracts every now and then, you're not bidding enough.

[jogs]

 barmar, on 2013-September-16, 09:28, said:

And Cohen discusses some of them. His books on the LOTT mention adjustments that you should make, such as reducing the number of total tricks when holding lower honors in the opponents' suit. It's also well known that the accuracy of the LOTT goes down significantly at the 5 level and above.

There's a chart on page 216, chap IX. I was disappointed that his followup book didn't focus on those concepts.

[MrAce]

 barmar, on 2013-September-16, 09:28, said:

And Cohen discusses some of them. His books on the LOTT mention adjustments that you should make, such as reducing the number of total tricks when holding lower honors in the opponents' suit. It's also well known that the accuracy of the LOTT goes down significantly at the 5 level and above.

In fact the most accurate levels for LOTT are 2-3 levels, their apprx accuracy is about % 60 (up to M.Lawrence)

[suleiman22]

I think that both bidding and offensive/defensive play is important. However, you cannot make 7NT if you cannot bid it. The system to me does not matter- I usually play what my partner plays. However, it is crucial that you and your partner
a) have the same bidding system
and
b) know how to bid it!
Bidding is very important, as you do not get much credit for making overtricks- however good bidding doesn't matter when you cannot make it on play. So overall, I think both are equally important.

[mike777]

ok if you think bidding is 80% rather than play ok......I just think on most levels this is just wrong.


Lets take a simple example.....hands are game or part score.....


If game bid it....if part score bid something then pass.

Now assume you play and defend better than 80% of duplicate players.
Of course we do not count the thousands and thousands who don't play tourney bridge often...that is an important point.


OTOH if we count everyone I mean everyone who plays bridge ok....that is a different sample.


OTOH2 if the sample size is only the top 100 rated living players ok.......maybe biddingt is 80% maybe..

My only point is if we are talking about 80% of active ACBL players or other then yes playing the cards is much more important. Just bid game...bid game often.

[32519]

Have you been following the BB? Plenty of IMPs gained/lost on bidding to small slam only when grand was there, or not bidding the slam when it was there. Next thing you see you have been eliminated in the RR phase of the tournament. At this level you got to be able to BID!!!!

[mike777]

 32519, on 2013-September-23, 00:16, said:

Have you been following the BB? Plenty of IMPs gained/lost on bidding to small slam only when grand was there, or not bidding the slam when it was there. Next thing you see you have been eliminated in the RR phase of the tournament. At this level you got to be able to BID!!!!

ok I have no idea what you are saying......bid slam or don't bid slam....per your post I have no idea.
---------------------------------


Per my only post is bid game....and I am nonexpert

[GreenMan]

Lots of IMPs swinging where the contract is the same at both tables, too.

[the saint]

I've coached two sides that made World U20 finals. In both we outbid the opponents. In both we lost because our cardplay was worse. Specifically defence. Bidding starts a hand. Cardplay ends it. Get that wrong and it is definitely all over.

[CSGibson]

to me, all three aspects of the game are important, but especially cardplay. Bidding is subjective, a good bidder may be punished on a particular layout, etc. Cardplay is rewarded on every hand, including having opponents start to get more cautious when you start setting them multiple tricks in their tight games.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you will be truly successful without all three aspects of the game firing away at a high level, but I don't think you can really be a good bidder without being a good player of the cards - you have to be able to visualize some of the play in the bidding. Likewise, you have to have a minimum amount of skill bidding to understand the opponent's auction, and the inferences available for opening lead. I think that is a severely underrated area - I have a partner who usually takes about a minute to select an opening lead, its because she is visualizing the hands, and voila, she leads extremely effectively.