How do double fits affect the law of total tricks in hands like this? EW and NS can both make 10 tricks (and NS are only stopped from making 11 by good defence) whereas strict application of LTT for the number of spades EW and hearts NS suggests only 18 total tricks instead of 20. Is adding another 1 for each double fit a sensible “tweak” here?
Also, how good do you think the “Law” (it clearly isn’t strict) is in general terms?
Regards,
Iain
Bobby WolffFebruary 20th, 2023 at 3:03 pm
Hi Iain,
You would likely be denounced for answering your own questions, but how can I do so, when you, as usual, are right on with your description.
However, the way any experienced good player goes about it, should not be tweaked, since the information available, should guide the bidding and thus the result, but, in truth, and even though, at least IMHO, there are twists and turns in likely a majority of truths learned to make many different results, considering being able to search out, in more or less while being blindfolded (not seeing through the backs of the opponents cards), the exact things to do, at the precise time. may (will) too often, lead to a poor ending.
An almost perfect example is today’s hand, wherein West would (should?), lead a club, while defending 5 hearts), hoping for today’s ending. Whether East held the ace of trumps (hearts) remained to be seen, but the logic was top drawer, although oft times, the patient would die, but, if so, perhaps like a Russian comedy is thought to be, as different from a Russin tragedy, die happy.
Bobby WolffFebruary 20th, 2023 at 3:28 pm
Hi again Iain,
Please excuse me for being carried away with the above and certainly not answering your specific question.
While I think those types of questions and answers definitely have a place in the developments of a talented player’s bridge game, he (or she) better be prepared for dealing (please excuse) with it, except as a random occurrence. IOW, the only gambling any one player should be prepared to risk for so-called G2 (intelligence)
becomes and will almost always be, somewhat random, but sometimes (often?) the reason for being lulled into a false sense of security, IOW, a decided risk!
However, it also depends how much you would like to have something true and ego inflating to discuss at next week’s bridge game or, for that matter, right here on our web site.
clarksburgFebruary 20th, 2023 at 3:31 pm
Good morning Bobby
Some years back, in response to my question about LOTT, you indicated the Law is at it’s best for two and three-level part score contests, and it’s value falls off for higher level contracts based upon highly-distributional hands.
(Couldn’t find my “Bobbyisms” file note, but quite sure of the gist of your response).
Bobby WolffFebruary 20th, 2023 at 3:40 pm
Hi Clarksburg,
Yes, while that law is perhaps the leading one to be so-called, universally followed and reasonably on target, but also the one, clever opponents wait for and pounce on unsuspecting opponents when they are unusually distributed (meaning bridge distribution, not real body shape).
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
How do double fits affect the law of total tricks in hands like this? EW and NS can both make 10 tricks (and NS are only stopped from making 11 by good defence) whereas strict application of LTT for the number of spades EW and hearts NS suggests only 18 total tricks instead of 20. Is adding another 1 for each double fit a sensible “tweak” here?
Also, how good do you think the “Law” (it clearly isn’t strict) is in general terms?
Regards,
Iain
Hi Iain,
You would likely be denounced for answering your own questions, but how can I do so, when you, as usual, are right on with your description.
However, the way any experienced good player goes about it, should not be tweaked, since the information available, should guide the bidding and thus the result, but, in truth, and even though, at least IMHO, there are twists and turns in likely a majority of truths learned to make many different results, considering being able to search out, in more or less while being blindfolded (not seeing through the backs of the opponents cards), the exact things to do, at the precise time. may (will) too often, lead to a poor ending.
An almost perfect example is today’s hand, wherein West would (should?), lead a club, while defending 5 hearts), hoping for today’s ending. Whether East held the ace of trumps (hearts) remained to be seen, but the logic was top drawer, although oft times, the patient would die, but, if so, perhaps like a Russian comedy is thought to be, as different from a Russin tragedy, die happy.
Hi again Iain,
Please excuse me for being carried away with the above and certainly not answering your specific question.
While I think those types of questions and answers definitely have a place in the developments of a talented player’s bridge game, he (or she) better be prepared for dealing (please excuse) with it, except as a random occurrence. IOW, the only gambling any one player should be prepared to risk for so-called G2 (intelligence)
becomes and will almost always be, somewhat random, but sometimes (often?) the reason for being lulled into a false sense of security, IOW, a decided risk!
However, it also depends how much you would like to have something true and ego inflating to discuss at next week’s bridge game or, for that matter, right here on our web site.
Good morning Bobby
Some years back, in response to my question about LOTT, you indicated the Law is at it’s best for two and three-level part score contests, and it’s value falls off for higher level contracts based upon highly-distributional hands.
(Couldn’t find my “Bobbyisms” file note, but quite sure of the gist of your response).
Hi Clarksburg,
Yes, while that law is perhaps the leading one to be so-called, universally followed and reasonably on target, but also the one, clever opponents wait for and pounce on unsuspecting opponents when they are unusually distributed (meaning bridge distribution, not real body shape).
“You pays your money, you takes your choice”!
Hi Bobby,
Many thanks for the replies!
Iain