[benlessard]

Quote

[That certainly is a possibility, but the point is you don't really know whether the hands can fit badly (like your case) or well (like the actual case). Thus, "when in doubt..." Heck, it can hardly be doubled for -2 and it might make. That's what bidding thin games is for.

Why not ? partner has 4 game tries available. If partner got an A and Q or C he should be 3C and ill be in game, if hes got AQ of D he will bid 3D and ill be in game. If hes got KH/QH he will bid 3H and ill be able to stop in 3S (with AK of H hes got a WTP 4S) with scattered values he will bid 3S and i will pass since i know Heart H is wasted. The only bad case i see if hes got and A and the Q of D without the J of clubs or an A and J of clubs and nothing else where he will pass 2S. Making game tries where your soft values are is simply common sense.

[whereagles]

gwnn, on 2011-June-22, 05:15, said:

if I pass because I've shown my range and I feel I'm a minimum, does that make me an unlucky expert?

Yes

Seriously now, I understand your point and you are probably right in theory. Thing is there are a couple of hands across that make a cold game, which pard would bid the way he did. The actual hand is one such example. Another would be, say, xx xxx Axxx Jxxx.

The weak hand has difficulties evaluating how well his values fit. The strong hand has an easier time (because it is more independant) and that's why it should make the final call. It would be a different story if dbler had, say,

KQJTxx
Qxx
xx
AKQ

because now the risk of 4 red suit losers would be greater. This is what I mean with "being independant": such a hand needs more cards across than the actual one. It's not just having a min or a max or showing your hand or what not. It's exercising judgement.

[whereagles]

benlessard, on 2011-June-22, 05:31, said:

Why not ? partner has 4 game tries available. (...) Making game tries where your soft values are is simply common sense.

Again, you're right in theory. But practice is another thing. Are you 100% sure pard is on the same wavelength? Are you willing to take that risk and win the post mortem but lose at table? I confess used to be like that, but I became more practical.

[han]

whereagles, on 2011-June-22, 05:04, said:

Han come on, that has nothing to do with it and you bloody well know it

Throughout the years you have made it clear that you have very little faith in your partners. Perhaps this is justified, I cannot possibly judge this.

In this thread it comes up again. Partner has bid only 1D, 1NT and 3S, but perhaps partner is a poor player who doesn't realize that he or she has a great hand for us. If so, maybe we should indeed bid the game, even though we are minimal for our bids so far.

Perhaps knowing that partner is bad is what you call "being practical".

[Phil]

han, on 2011-June-22, 10:38, said:

Throughout the years you have made it clear that you have very little faith in your partners. Perhaps this is justified, I cannot possibly judge this.

Perhaps we've all partnered Mrs. Guggenheim on occasion.

[han]

whereagles, on 2011-June-22, 09:15, said:

Thing is there are a couple of hands across that make a cold game, which pard would bid the way he did. The actual hand is one such example. Another would be, say, xx xxx Axxx Jxxx.

I'd like to point out that you go down when the 1C opener has a 5-card club suit, unless LHO does not lead his stiff in the suit that his partner opened. The good news is that in that case 3S would likely be down as well.

I do agree that partner would bid this way holding that hand, and that there are other hands that make game quite good. But I think that if we bid 4S on this hand then we get to three or four times as many bad games, at least when partner is a good player who appreciates vulnerable games as well.

[ArtK78]

han, on 2011-June-22, 10:46, said:

But I think that if we bid 4S on this hand then we get to three or four times as many bad games, at least when partner is a good player who appreciates vulnerable games as well.

Since I am the OP, I thought that it would be appropriate to point out that the vulnerability is equal NOT vul.

[han]

In that case I pass.

[whereagles]

han, on 2011-June-22, 10:38, said:

Throughout the years you have made it clear that you have very little faith in your partners. Perhaps this is justified, I cannot possibly judge this.

I understand why you say that, but you really are confusing the issue. One thing is trust, another is sharing reponsibilities.

Perhaps the crux of the matter is none of that but rather how we judge what the odds are of finding a suitable hand across. Apparently my tactical instinct doesn't care much for odds-calculation, preferring to just tell me "screw the odds and bid it".

Anyway, I think I've made my point. We'll see at table who's right. Cheers!

[the hog]

whereagles, on 2011-June-22, 16:17, said:

I understand why you say that, but you really are confusing the issue. One thing is trust, another is sharing reponsibilities.

Perhaps the crux of the matter is none of that but rather how we judge what the odds are of finding a suitable hand across. Apparently my tactical instinct doesn't care much for odds-calculation, preferring to just tell me .

Anyway, I think I've made my point. We'll see at table who's right. Cheers!

Nuno, I agree with nearly all of the posts you make. This time however I think you are way off. As I posted and as others have said, South has, if anything, overbid his hand. I don't disagree with the bidding but do think it was aggressive. Based on South's bidding, North's failure to raise to game is really poor. I really feel that for south to bid this game is masterminding given the auction to date. Well, perhaps you do as well judging by this comment, ""screw the odds and bid it". Ok, but that is not partnership Bridge imo.

[whereagles]

Well, fine. But hey doubler cannot be THAT strong. He didn't jump to 2♠ over 1♦. I took this into account, mind you.

Perhaps it's clear to pass 3♠ for all of you, but it's not that clear to me. Hence, adding one for the road. It is human to take chances when the reward is high as much as it is to bid shyly with weak hands. I find it overly conservative to insist on being disciplined when the situation calls for looking at the human side of the matter.