[wank]

---

it was actually speedball which imo makes pass a clear winner as the opps will often be having a total larf, but assuming it's real bridge, what do you think?

[whereagles]

I think 4NT.

[mike777]

 whereagles, on 2011-August-21, 18:40, said:

I think 4NT.

ditto

[wyman]

put me down for 4N as well

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 wyman, on 2011-August-21, 19:15, said:

put me down for 4N as well

ditto

[gszes]

p did not overcall 2s and avoided 4s as well. That means opps
have 7 or even 8 spades btn them and it is hugely unlikely
p has really bad spades and is advertising them with 2nd
tox. Opps seem slated to go down since our minor suit distribution
makes it very unlikely opps have any minor suit length for spade
pitches. I would not be shocked if the defense started out
spade AK and spade ruff and opps booked with ten tricks left.

It is a ton easier to take 4 tricks than 11 and it might even be
we can set them 3 tricks X even if we can make 5 of a minor
(which is hardly a guarantee). So IMO

PASS

[pooltuna]

 gszes, on 2011-August-22, 06:02, said:

p did not overcall 2s and avoided 4s as well. That means opps
have 7 or even 8 spades btn them and it is hugely unlikely
p has really bad spades and is advertising them with 2nd
tox. Opps seem slated to go down since our minor suit distribution
makes it very unlikely opps have any minor suit length for spade
pitches. I would not be shocked if the defense started out
spade AK and spade ruff and opps booked with ten tricks left.

It is a ton easier to take 4 tricks than 11 and it might even be
we can set them 3 tricks X even if we can make 5 of a minor
(which is hardly a guarantee). So IMO

PASS

partner should only be Xing 4♥ with a value driven hand not a distributional one so I am inclined to answer your post the same way the other clowns answered...DITTO the pass

[aguahombre]

When we pull this kind of double, it is not from fright. We want a high expectation of making. The second double is a power double (extra strength, not extra distribution).

I agree with the passers, but do not agree that clowns are involved on either side of the issue. I just believe the 4NT bidders are mistaken.

[mikeh]

I don't understand why the passers are so confident.

Firsly, let's see if we can make any reasonable assumptions about the layout here.

I will place partner with 4=1=4=4 as a working definition. That may not be correct, but it is the shape partner expects me to play for.

Let's make another dangerous but, I think, reasonable assumption....rho is not an idiot or a maniac.

Where are the spades?

Even if LHO has 3, RO still has 5 and (on our working assumption) 4 hearts. So he will be 5=4 or 6=4 majors.

It doesn't take much beyond those assumptions to start to realize that, firstly, we rate to do quite well in a minor suit game (the minors will split reasonably well) and, secondly, that we rate not to do so well on defence. Especially if rho is 6=4, we will be hard pressed to do better than 300 and may do -590 with 5 minor on ice. No, I don't 'expect' them to make, but who would criticize the auction (before your fatal pass) if RHO held AQxxxx Axxx xx x and your partner KJ109 x AKJx AKQx?

My point is that fearing a poor result from passing isn't based on assuming a freak or that anyone has made any call inconsistent with the auction. Partner has elicited our opinion, and we have an offensive hand, so I make an offensive call (take that however you like it)

All told, I'd rather take my chances in 5 minor, so 4N for me.

It hardly needs saying that I fully appreciate that this may work out badly. I think it close.

[cherdano]

Opponents probably have a 10-card heart fit and a second fit in spades. We are 5-5 in suits that partner made a takeout double for. How is this not an obvious 4N?

[aguahombre]

Because, mikeh usually doesn't need ten paragraphs to express the obvious, then at the end admit it is close.

[cherdano]

 aguahombre, on 2011-August-22, 12:06, said:

Because, mikeh usually doesn't need ten paragraphs to express the obvious, then at the end admit it is close.

Do you realize how ridiculous your post is?
M: This is really complicated and close.
C: No, I think mikeh is wrong and it's a clear decision.
A: C is wrong because he disagrees with M.

[whereagles]

not really. mikeh always writes a lot... remember, he's a lawyer lol

[mikeh]

 cherdano, on 2011-August-22, 12:15, said:

Do you realize how ridiculous your post is?
M: This is really complicated and close.
C: No, I think mikeh is wrong and it's a clear decision.
A: C is wrong because he disagrees with M.

maybe we're getting bogged down in semantics, but (as with many similar posts of mine in the past) the fact that I think the decision is 'close' doesn't mean that the decision is not clear.

I might think that on balance 4N will turn out best 55% of the time and pass 45% of the time....I think that most would agree with 45-55 is 'close', but there is no doubt in my mind that it is clear to take the 55% approach.

One could shave it finer.....if one had a line of play, for example, that offered a 53% line and an alternative line that offered a 52% line, then in the absence of any other information, no rational player, not playing for a swing, would knowingly choose the inferior line...the decision would be very close but completely clear.

There are situations in which I think a decision is both close and unclear. Those are always going to be based either on my inability to crunch the numbers or doubts I have about the inferences I draw. While I have drawn inferences in my decision to bid, I think those inferences are reasonable and hence am prepared to act on them with some confidence (and willing to accept the consequences if I should be in error).

But, I must admit that the syllogism propounded by Arend is flattering, even tho somewhat at odds with reality.

[cherdano]

I am not sure which flattering syllogism I propounded. I do not think the decision is close. I understand that Mike thinks the decision is close, and that's a completely reasonable position (and admit that we may just be arguing about semantics). What is unreasonable is aquaman's position that I am wrong because Mike has a different opinion.

[aguahombre]

You are never wrong. I was simply commenting on the term "obvious". "Clear", partly because of mikeh's explanation, is more accurate.

IMO, close (by a neck) became clear (by a couple lengths), thanks to Mike. Obvious would have been Secretariat in the Belmont Stakes

[jdeegan]

4NT for me too, assuming a classic weak 2 bid. I don't like the probable major suit layout - ♥ six opposite four, and ♠ three opposite five - if I pass. If the minor suits are split 3-1, and we know pard's ♠ are in the pocket - well, you see what I mean.
Another way to look at is LOTT analysis which suggests something on the order of 21 total tricks, so there easily might be a game both ways. A more or less blind penalty pass on hands with lots of total tricks is usually a bad idea.

[JLOGIC]

Super obvious 4N, could be a double game swing etc etc. No way are we 100 % beating them, and even if we were why shouldn't we be making...partner would have a lot of aces and kings!

[inquiry]

I am almost always with the clowns, and I am this time too.. . 4NT is my bid.

[the hog]

4NT for me also. I am not convinced that I can beat 4H on this hand.