[kenberg]

Sectional, mps, no one vul. The 4H bidder on my left is rather intense, not crazy, capable.
I am interested in whether you think a 4S call by me in the pass out seat is suicidal or obvious, or somewhere in between.

---

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2015-June-12, 07:05, said:

I am interested in whether you think a 4S call by me in the pass out seat is suicidal or obvious

All white at matchpoints .. can't we have both?

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2015-June-12, 07:22, said:

All white at matchpoints .. can't we have both?

As in "obviously suicidal'?

[MrAce]

I think it is neither suicidal nor obvious.

[masse24]

I'm passing (but I may be wrong).

[kenberg]

Glad to hear it. Usually I supply all information with a hand but here I had a reason for not doing so. As I recall, the 4H was not preceded by a skip warning, partner thought a bit, no problem, but it at least seemed to me that he reached for a bid and then quickly moved his hand back and produced a pass card. (He's a straight arrow, he just slipped on this).

If I think a bid is totally clear cut I make it, and I accpet a ruling that it is not as clear cut as I thought. Here it wasn't even close to clear cut imo so of course I passed and of course it would have made 4S. We beat 4H a trick, not a disaster, but below average.

I still am not sure what I would have done had I felt free to make the call of my choice. My guess is that I would have passed. Anyway I was pretty sure that 4S wasn't obvious. Thanks for the confirmation.

[WesleyC]

Personally, I think 4S is obvious and that pass isn't a logical alternative.

[MrAce]

WesleyC, on 2015-June-12, 09:51, said:

Personally, I think 4S is obvious and that pass isn't a logical alternative.

It is hell of a logical alternative. Not everybody allows themselves to be dragged by opponents. I would probably bid 4♠ myself w/o UI, but saying that it is obvious is misguided imo. Pd may have a lot of hearts. And even if you catch some minor hcps to cover your minor losers, they will be in front of the guy (E) who is likely to hold them as well.

[ggwhiz]

We play Newfie (or Polish) texas here where 4♥ by them is a transfer to 4♠ by us but it is off over a flinch.

We tend to not do very well in long KO matches when the opponents find this out early.

[ArtK78]

I think that 4♠ is obvious at any form of scoring.

[Jinksy]

I'll just be over by the bar, leaning on this here sig.

[monikrazy]

I would bid 4♠ and consider it relatively standard.

[kenberg]

Ok, some for 4S some for pass, which of course means that I can't bit it after the hitch. My feeling was that 4S wasn't crazy but I certainly wouldn't relish explaining to some skeptical audience why it was of course a clear cut call.

I'll never be sure what I would have done w/o the hitch, but anyway having some votes for and some against matches pretty well with the way I thought of it.

[jdonn]

MrAce, on 2015-June-12, 11:11, said:

It is hell of a logical alternative. Not everybody allows themselves to be dragged by opponents. I would probably bid 4♠ myself w/o UI, but saying that it is obvious is misguided imo. Pd may have a lot of hearts. And even if you catch some minor hcps to cover your minor losers, they will be in front of the guy (E) who is likely to hold them as well.

I don't think anyone denies 4♠ can work out very badly. But when someone says it's not a logical alternative, I just interpret it as it's not a logical alternative for them because they know they would always do it. Of course I'm not saying that argument would stand up in committee.

[gszes]

I would expect 4s to be correct 80+ % of the time. By correct, I mean making or going down less (x'd) than 4h making. Can anyone out there provide us poor uninformed masses what the % is for the term "logical" to count and is it solely based on the bidders perception or does it always have to be a committee?

[kenberg]

gszes, on 2015-June-12, 16:42, said:

I would expect 4s to be correct 80+ % of the time. By correct, I mean making or going down less (x'd) than 4h making. Can anyone out there provide us poor uninformed masses what the % is for the term "logical" to count and is it solely based on the bidders perception or does it always have to be a committee?

My thinking in this case was that I couldn't bid, even if I wanted to. Mr.Ace said "I think it [a 4S call] is neither suicidal nor obvious." which is how I saw it and I think that's enough to mean I can't do it. Another way to say it: Given the glitch, I had more confidence than before that 4S would make.

Here is something that makes a difference to me, although I don't think it makes a difference in the committee rulings: In this case, the problem was self-inflicted. I am not on any campaign about pard, these things happen. But had he taken a little more care, I would not have had a problem. The time for thought did not cause a problem, we get time to think after a 4H opening whether or not a skip bid is announced, in fact I think we are supposed to take time to think whether or not a skip bid is announced. But his manner of bidding did cause a problem.
That's different from some complex auction that just naturally will require thought. Sometimes there is simply no way to bid in tempo unless you just do it and hope you have done it right. I am more sympathetic to those cases.

[Phil]

4!s. The hitch could mean a lot of things.

While I expect values across I don't expect a lot of spades.

[WesleyC]

MrAce, on 2015-June-12, 11:11, said:

It is hell of a logical alternative. Not everybody allows themselves to be dragged by opponents. I would probably bid 4♠ myself w/o UI, but saying that it is obvious is misguided imo. Pd may have a lot of hearts. And even if you catch some minor hcps to cover your minor losers, they will be in front of the guy (E) who is likely to hold them as well.

The reason I don't think pass is a logical alternative is that we have a strong 6c spade suit and a void in the opponents suit. Partner is marked with heart length so they can have considerable values (likely in the minors) and be unable to act, especially if they have a shortage in a side suit. I expect 4S will make often enough to justify bidding it for that reason alone. However bidding 4S has even more ways to win because it might also be a profitable save, or not get doubled, or push the opponents to the 5 level, or the field is making +140 our way so +50 is already a bad score, or partner leads a minor and blows a trick against 4H for -480 vs -450 etc....

Hence my conclusion that defending 4H on this hand isn't a logical alternative which is how I comment if polled by a director.

[WesleyC]

gszes, on 2015-June-12, 16:42, said:

I would expect 4s to be correct 80+ % of the time. By correct, I mean making or going down less (x'd) than 4h making. Can anyone out there provide us poor uninformed masses what the % is for the term "logical" to count and is it solely based on the bidders perception or does it always have to be a committee?

The definition a logical alternative is an "action, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, that would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it."

However there isn't any consensus about exactly what quantity "significant" or "some" represent. In a practical sense the director would poll a handful of players of an appropriate level and make their decision based on that.

The part of the rule that most people misunderstand, is that simply giving consideration to another call isn't enough. Some of your peers must actually choose an action as their first choice for it to be a logical alternative.

[filostine]

I would (bid) at imps and pairs but not for money...