Law of Total Tricks question

[Shugart23]

DO you consider the Law of Total Tricks a Matchpoint or an IMP decision making tool ? I suppose some may answer both, but I'm not sure it has equal worth for both game types. Thank you

[Vampyr]

Much more about matchpoints, I should have said; since it is mainly (I think) applied in situations when you want to concede 100 instead of 110.

[aguahombre]

IMO, at either form of scoring, we should be applying the LAW in competitive (or soon to be competitive) situations to get to our own Law level first --- and in different ways depending on strength.

 

After that happens, it is most often the opponents, not us, who have to concern themselves with the subtleties of MP vs. IMP odds in relation to the LAW.

 

So, my answer is BOTH.

[TylerE]

Neither. What I have seen it used most for is justification after going for -300 or more.

[jogs]

Neither. What I have seen it used most for is justification after going for -300 or more.

 

Yes, always bid 3/3 with 17 total trumps. -200, -300 and -500.

[SteveMoe]

LoTT is a tool for estimating available tricks. As such it applies to both versions of the game. What action you choose to take with that information will depend on the form of scoring.

[akwoo]

I don't know how good this is, but generally I think the right rule of thumb is that, in MPs, you should bid if the Law (after adjustments) guarantees one of the contracts will make, but in IMPs, you should only bid if the Law allows the possibility that both of the contracts will make.

 

So to bid to the 3 level over the opponents' 2 level bid, you need 16 total tricks at MPs and 17 total tricks at IMPs, and to bid 3 over 3, you need 17 total tricks at MPs and 18 at IMPs.

 

But - if you are seriously worried about going down 2 (especially vulnerable) opposite a part score, then the probabilities change, both at MPs and at IMPs.

[jdeegan]

I think LOTT can be a useful guide at any form of scoring. Lotsa trumps GOOD. Not so many trumps BAD.

[steve2005]

I don't know how good this is, but generally I think the right rule of thumb is that, in MPs, you should bid if the Law (after adjustments) guarantees one of the contracts will make, but in IMPs, you should only bid if the Law allows the possibility that both of the contracts will make.

 

So to bid to the 3 level over the opponents' 2 level bid, you need 16 total tricks at MPs and 17 total tricks at IMPs, and to bid 3 over 3, you need 17 total tricks at MPs and 18 at IMPs.

 

But - if you are seriously worried about going down 2 (especially vulnerable) opposite a part score, then the probabilities change, both at MPs and at IMPs.

The law doesn't quite work so should only be a guide. You have to make the final decision. What ackwoo says sounds wise

 

 

 

 

 

[msjennifer]

LTT is a really good one at any type of scoring,1)if your opponents are apparently weaker than you.2) if your partner is also fully conversant with LTT. Once my partner on BBO thought that the competitive bid,which I made based on LTT,was a highly invitational bid and shot to game with -800 result.My humble suggestion is " use LTT at either forms of scoring provided you know your opponents and your partner"

[jdgalt]

I see it as one of a whole array of ways to evaluate a hand -- raw points, Goren points, Quick Tricks (or Honor Tricks), Losing Trick Count, etc.

 

If I have time, I apply all of them to a hand. If most of them tell me to do the same thing, it's probably right.

 

Any one of them by itself will often be wrong.

[blackshoe]

LTT is a really good one at any type of scoring,1)if your opponents are apparently weaker than you.2) if your partner is also fully conversant with LTT. Once my partner on BBO thought that the competitive bid,which I made based on LTT,was a highly invitational bid and shot to game with -800 result.My humble suggestion is " use LTT at either forms of scoring provided you know your opponents and your partner"

That's not a LTC problem, it's a partnership agreement/understanding problem.

[aguahombre]

That's not a LTC problem, it's a partnership agreement/understanding problem.

He was using "LTT", a bastardization of LOTT...LTC is not the issue.

[blackshoe]

He was using "LTT", a bastardization of LOTT...LTC is not the issue.

I mistyped. It's not a LOTT problem either.