[whereagles]

helene_t, on Nov 2 2007, 01:04 PM, said:

1. Lawrence can be right but the SST/WP argument is hardly relevant because you need to know if 3♠ will make against our 4m-1, and how much 3♠ will go down against our game. I suppose you could apply SST/WP if you were willing to estimate the SST/WP of opps as well.

2. It's a misconception that SST/WP is an alternative to the LOTT. It has a completely different scope.

1. Ok. Let's see it from opps point of view then.

Their SST rates to be 2, unless the minors are mirrored (less likely than unmirrored). Suppose now we got 0/4/5 WPs in S/H/minors. They'll have respectively 10/6/0 WPs, i.e.

We: 24 WPs, SST 3 --> 11 tricks
They: 16 WPs, SST 2 --> 8 tricks

Let's try another scenario: we 3/0/5, they 7/10/0

We: 23 WPs, SST 3 --> probably 10 tricks due to the spade trick being setup too late
They: 17 WPs, SST 2 --> 8 tricks

Seems like odds are make 10-11 tricks in a minor and that they won't go more than 1 down in 3♠.


2. It's not a misconception. It is a true statement: it IS an alternative. Just that SST/WPs isn't as easy and straightfoward to evaluate as LOTT.

[han]

So I believe Frances taught us that partner could easily have 4 hearts here. With something like a 2-4-2-5 distribution, partner would double and bid 4H, showing at least two places to play.

Could those that pass post some hands where they would pull to 4C? Would those be similar shaped hands with fewer quick tricks?

[ArtK78]

In my partnerships, partner cannot have 4 hearts. So where are the heart honors?

This is very close. Passing 3♠x could result in -730 when we can make 9-11 tricks in a minor. Partner's responsive double indicates that he has at least one, if not both, minor suits. So I am bidding 4♣. I may miss a +200 (maybe even +500) on some occasions, but I should get a reasonable score.

Besides, maybe they will bid again.

[jtfanclub]

whereagles, on Nov 2 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

1. Ok. Let's see it from opps point of view then.

Their SST rates to be 2, unless the minors are mirrored (less likely than unmirrored). Suppose now we got 0/4/5 WPs in S/H/minors. They'll have respectively 10/6/0 WPs, i.e.

We: 24 WPs, SST 3 --> 11 tricks
They: 16 WPs, SST 2 --> 8 tricks

Ummmm...so if I understand this right, IF we have 150 honors in both minors, AND every point on both sides is working, THEN we might have 11 tricks.

I was thinking 4♣, but that'll change my mind in a hurry. Your partner made a responsive double. That doesn't scream extreme purity to me. I also expect that there's a lot fewer than 40 WP in this deck.

For example, if your partner has Qxx of spades, that's likely a trick on defense but not on offense. If your partner has, say, the QT of hearts, that'll set up slow trick for you on defense, but on offense you'll never have the time. Even if your partner has, say, the AKT of spades, that's not much of a help. You get to sluff what? Hearts you were planning to ruff? Diamonds you were planning to establish?

I don't think there's anything wrong with Mike Lawrence. I think you're starting with the assumption that they have no losers in spades and that you have no losers in the minors (with a 4-4 fit and a 2♠ opening, natch). That's a hell of an assumption to make.

[kfay]

I'm with the passers on this one, and I did just that. Here's the full deal:

Scoring: MP

E S W N
2♠ X 3♠ X
All Pass

---

I didn't really think it was clear-cut but I agree with everything that Winston said. IMPs I'll probably bid but here the quick tricks make pass very attractive.

[jdonn]

Partner had KQ doubleton of spades and they go down 1. Well done passers.

(I'm only a little bitter )

[whereagles]

jtf, I just examined two scenarios, which seemed to be consistent and likely with the bidding.

Besides, that I got no losers in the minors seems like a good assumption: pard made a responsive dbl and I got AK AK in the minors. It isn't far fetched to assume he has the missing Qs. And if pard has ♠Qxx, there's a good chance opps will fish out the 3-1 break.

BTW, now that I see the full hand, I think I would have bid 3NT with pd's hand

[han]

jdonn, on Nov 2 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

Partner had KQ doubleton of spades and they go down 1. Well done passers.

(I'm only a little bitter )

Yep, partner had a 14-count and only very few will be in the making 3NT. Well done passers.

[whereagles]

Come to think of it.. pard's responsive dbl is actually kinda awful.

[kfay]

Knowing what South has in his (my) hand 3NT red at imps is an EXTREMELY unattractive contract, imo. 3NT is a lucky make. I'm not saying that the double is good but I AM saying that if these t/o doubles are acceptable by South that 3NT is just as bad as X.

Anyways if partner doesn't have ♠KQ then hopefully we get favorable splits in hearts and clubs. This contract could have gone down 3! It's not just that partner had 1 spade trick that we set this contract, it's that we probably had a trick coming to us. Pass is a risk, but a calculated one. Certainly forgivable at MPs.

Edit: I mean 3NT is giving THEM a magic 200 more often than not. Am I wrong?

[whereagles]

kfay, on Nov 2 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

Pass is a risk, but a calculated one. Certainly forgivable at MPs.

Are you sure? I don't want to argue with sucess, but isn't it more normal for pard to have, say,

xxx
Kx
Qxxx
KJxx

[jtfanclub]

whereagles, on Nov 2 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

jtf, I just examined two scenarios, which seemed to be consistent and likely with the bidding.

Huh. That's what I frequently have for my responsive doubles...a single stop in the opponent's suit, and 4-4 in the minors. Looks a little heavy to me, but the KQ of spades probably isn't carrying full weight.

I think a loser in each minor (which I expect to happen here in a club contract with the actual hand) is not uncommon on the auction and given hand.

[whereagles]

Sorry, I thought I had AK AK in the minors. Would still bid 4♣, though.

[han]

For what it's worth, I do agree with partner's double. But often partner will have the same shape in a hand that is quite a bit weaker, so I'm still not sure if passing is right.

[keylime]

I really loathe 4m here, and convert the double - the +200 allure is too much when they are red at MPs. That and the psychology of netting +500 when others are in a shaky 3NT that may go down, might help you in the long run as well.

[helene_t]

I like p's double, he has perfect shape and 3N is too much of a gamble for me

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Nov 2 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

FWIW I think the argument that dummy will have 3 spades is silly, when I have 4 spades I'm sure I bid 3S more often than 4S. It's not mandatory to offer up a number with random balanced hands that have 4 spades.

I happen to agree, but that is also why LOTT can at best only be a guide - you cannot be a slave to LOTT. No one ever knows for sure how many trumps each side holds in their best fit.

When I said opps rate to have 9 spades, that is simply an estimation and won't be accurate more than 50-60% of the time - sometimes they raise on 4 and sometimes on a doubleton. But you have to start LOTT estimation somewhere, so 9 is a reasonable assumption.

It is also guesswork as to partner's shape - again, an estimation is the best you can do and thus relying totally on LOTT is wrong.

In the given scenario, I look at estimated LOTT but even more importantly I look at my good defense and lousy hearts and determine our chances of making game are remote so taking the risk of going +200 seem worthwhile.

This is why I pull at imps - I can't be sure of LOTT and do not want to bring back a big minus number.

BTW, if I were missing either minor suit 10-spot I wouldn't double - I think it really is dead minimum and only so because of the good interiors. Keep in mind that we are forcing to a 9-trick contract with a double of 2S.