[NickRW]

The_Hog, on May 16 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

Don't understand this. If you are going to bid, and I would, why not bid 4C non leaping leaping Michaels?

Yeah - if you've got a partner that has heard of it and will remember it when it happens and, indeed, you can remember whether you agreed it with them in the first place. Frankly I'd never heard of it before I came on this forum.

In the abscence of such an agreement I'd rather be passed in 4H than 4C opposite random possible holdings for partner.

Nick

[jdonn]

NickRW, on May 16 2008, 07:58 AM, said:

However, for what it is worth, 3♠ was more often than not a make - so doubling and leaving it is generally a bad idea even at MP, let alone IMP.

Didn't it occur to you that virtually all the times it made, partner probably wasn't going to pass the double? Yes, making a penalty double on this hand if that's what you play is a bad idea

[NickRW]

jdonn, on May 16 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

Didn't it occur to you that virtually all the times it made, partner probably wasn't going to pass the double? Yes, making a penalty double on this hand if that's what you play is a bad idea

Duh. It never crossed my mind.

I was just reporting that there weren't, if my assumptions for the dealer prog were correct at all, a lot of hands where there was such an opportunity.

Nick