[dburn]

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

You must try to remember that Han is a mathematician. As such, he recognises 13 as a prime number, but does not recognise the integers on either side of it as numbers at all. He is more likely to present a hand with 14 cards than a hand with 12, because 14 (with only two divisors) is more nearly a prime than 12 (which has four divisors).

But if he would sit for 1M doubled with

♠xx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AJxxx

and yet be unwilling to double 1M in the passout seat having opened 1♦, then ... well, I'd not award him the Fields Medal for contributions to consistency, would you?

[cherdano]

dburn, on Sep 29 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

You must try to remember that Han is a mathematician. As such, he recognises 13 as a prime number, but does not recognise the integers on either side of it as numbers at all. He is more likely to present a hand with 14 cards than a hand with 12, because 14 (with only two divisors) is more nearly a prime than 12 (which has four divisors).

But if he would sit for 1M doubled with

♠xx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AJxxx

and yet be unwilling to double 1M in the passout seat having opened 1♦, then ... well, I'd not award him the Fields Medal for contributions to consistency, would you?

Uhm, I am sure he would double if you promise him partner will pass!

[skjaeran]

cherdano, on Sep 30 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

dburn, on Sep 29 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

You must try to remember that Han is a mathematician. As such, he recognises 13 as a prime number, but does not recognise the integers on either side of it as numbers at all. He is more likely to present a hand with 14 cards than a hand with 12, because 14 (with only two divisors) is more nearly a prime than 12 (which has four divisors).

But if he would sit for 1M doubled with

♠xx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AJxxx

and yet be unwilling to double 1M in the passout seat having opened 1♦, then ... well, I'd not award him the Fields Medal for contributions to consistency, would you?

Uhm, I am sure he would double if you promise him partner will pass!

Well, who's better in that regard than you?
Will you pass?

[han]

Maybe my previous hand wasn't such a good example (and not just because it had 14 cards). I still think that there are hands where we would clearly pass a penalty double from partner yet we will bid instead of making a reopening double.

How about this slight variation:

x xx AQxxx AJxxx.

The auction goes 1D - (1S) - p - p.

Would you double or bid 2C?