[whereagles]

JLOGIC, on Aug 24 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

It's certainly possible that we have a slam but I would never try for it

JLOL back?

but yeah, 4

[JLOGIC]

whereagles, on Aug 25 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 24 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

It's certainly possible that we have a slam but I would never try for it

JLOL back?

??

[Dirk Kuijt]

Gwnn

Of course the unbalanced hands make 4♥ much more easily, but can that really be the deal? Obviously the hand you cited is extreme, but, IMO, it is inconsistent with the bidding, since the opponents would be bidding much more with their many HCP and many diamonds. Yes, I'm aware there are risks in putting too much faith in the opponents to bid correctly (that is, the way I do ) OTOH, it is risky to assume that the opponents have made a mistake.

[pooltuna]

I wonder if a simulation would generate probabilities for 3♥ and 4♥ contracts that match the current vote %age

[jdonn]

Dirk Kuijt, on Aug 25 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Gwnn

Of course the unbalanced hands make 4♥ much more easily, but can that really be the deal? Obviously the hand you cited is extreme, but, IMO, it is inconsistent with the bidding, since the opponents would be bidding much more with their many HCP and many diamonds. Yes, I'm aware there are risks in putting too much faith in the opponents to bid correctly (that is, the way I do ) OTOH, it is risky to assume that the opponents have made a mistake.

You are missing the point. It's not that partner can have xxxx xxxx x QJxx, it's that if that hand makes game just imagine how many actually possible limit raises make game.

[gwnn]

Dirk Kuijt, on Aug 25 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

Gwnn

Of course the unbalanced hands make 4♥ much more easily, but can that really be the deal?

yes, unbalanced hands are more likely from partner. suppose partner can have either

10-11 with no singleton (but not a very good 11)
OR
7-11 with a singleton (but not a very good 11)

which of these would you think is more common?

Also, the fact that in my example hand partner is short with about a good toothsome Ace (or AJ) from his limit raise but we still make game rather easily, what does that fact prove? that we should bid 3♥??

[hanp]

You are exaggerating your case gwnn, 7-11 with a singleton?

[gwnn]

What do you mean hanp

Axxx
Kxxx
x
xxxx

your call?

OK maybe you bid 4♥

but how does 8-11 sound?

[hanp]

With an 11-count, a singleton (especially a singleton diamond) and 4-card support partner won't pass 3H anyway so it doesn't matter what we do. The same is true for many 10-counts. That's what I meant.

It's also true that some of the 7-counts with singleton don't make a limit raise (especially if a mixed raise is available) but I wasn't thinking about that side of your range.

[gwnn]

I was just saying that partner's hand is more likely to be unbalanced than balanced. I wasn't making a very precise argument, it looked like shock therapy was what I was looking for.

[hanp]

I don't know if unbalanced is more likely, maybe it's 50-50 on the relevant hands. Either way, Dirk was clearly off when he said can that really be the deal? . Of course it can.

[gwnn]

Well I don't know either which is more likely, singleton or no singleton, if we eliminate the hands that would force to game anyway.

However, I am pretty sure that two out of three hands with 4333 shapes (partly dismissing the third one) is not a fair sample.

Do you agree with this hanp, or do you have some other minor qualm?

[Fluffy]

4333 10 counts are simple raises, even with A-K-K. We opened in third position.

[hanp]

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 05:47 AM, said:

However, I am pretty sure that two out of three hands with 4333 shapes (partly dismissing the third one) is not a fair sample.

Do you agree with this hanp, or do you have some other minor qualm?

I think you had ample opportunity to read that I wrote "Dirk was clearly off" 18 minutes earlier gwnn.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, on Aug 24 2010, 07:30 PM, said:

listen to gwnn, he offers you common sense

agree with myself

[gwnn]

hanp, on Aug 26 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 05:47 AM, said:

However, I am pretty sure that two out of three hands with 4333 shapes (partly dismissing the third one) is not a fair sample.

Do you agree with this hanp, or do you have some other minor qualm?

I think you had ample opportunity to read that I wrote "Dirk was clearly off" 18 minutes earlier gwnn.

I read that hanp but you used that to preface an out of context quote

[jdonn]

Oh no, 2 of my 3 favorite posters at each other's throats!

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

Do you agree with this hanp, or do you have some other minor qualm?

Don't you mean a minor quibble?

[gnasher]

gnasher, on Aug 26 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

Do you agree with this hanp, or do you have some other minor qualm?

Don't you mean a minor quibble?

Or, in fact, simply a "quibble", since a quibble is by definition minor.

[jdonn]

But a qualm isn't, so now you are quibbling with yourself.