[kgr]

IMP's

---

Your call?

[gwnn]

4♦

[whereagles]

4♦. Pard is very short in spades, so his take-out dbl rates to be a very pure one, with likelyhood of being on the lightish side (thus no way I'm passing this ).

[jogs]

Would be nice if you include vulnerability. I would pass if opponents are non-vul. They seem to take liberties non-vul.

[kgr]

jogs, on 2011-March-06, 07:33, said:

Would be nice if you include vulnerability. I would pass if opponents are non-vul. They seem to take liberties non-vul.

All red as you can see in the diagram header (red colors)

[Siegmund]

A close pass at IMPs that will occasionally go sour; a much clearer pass at MPs.

[kgr]

---

My Pass was not a success and I felt bad about it (Because I also think now it is bad)

[aguahombre]

So five of the ten voters (thus far) get to use the actual layout to show how much smarter they are than Larry Cohen. I was a sheep who guessed to pass with 17 total tricks likely.

[MrAce]

Obviously i would have the same result by passing.

But i still pass.

[the hog]

4D, diagram or no diagram. The result is no surprise.

[Free]

Pass and 4♦ can both have merit, but I think 4♦ is a lot safer.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-07, 15:56, said:

So five of the ten voters (thus far) get to use the actual layout to show how much smarter they are than Larry Cohen. I was a sheep who guessed to pass with 17 total tricks likely.

no need to be bitter.

just remember that a 7-0 fit is not the same as a 4-3 (for example).

long suits make the law break down.

[whereagles]

even 7-1 is not enough. This week-end I saw stuff broke 5-0

[whereagles]

gwnn, on 2011-March-08, 02:57, said:

long suits make the law break down.

The law is statistical. It says total tricks = trump length, ON AVERAGE. Deviations of 1-2 tricks are prefectly normal on such a random variable.

For an arguably better evaluation method, see Lawrence/Wirgren's book "I fought the law".

[gwnn]

Say we have a 4-4 fit, and we keep the distributions constant, and start moving around kings and queens between our hands, we will most often find that if a king is "onside" for them, it's "offside" for us, so the sum of the available tricks will stay more or less the same.

However, if we keep the opps' cards the same and we change our hands from 4-4 to 8-0, it will most often lead to them getting much less tricks on defence but not a much different number of tricks when they declare (perhaps one less, because we can ruff something, or their trumps break bad).

It is not just random. Long suits make the law break down.

[Siegmund]

If a penalty pass fails because opener had an 8-card suit to the KQ at equal vulnerability AND responder turned up with 3 working tricks... gee, seems like that means pass is clearly right and is usually going to net a 500-point set, with no guarantee a 4D bid is going to produce a game.

[bluecalm]

Pass wouldn't even cross my mind to be honest. I think it's very bad.
I don't think it's close even at matchpoints.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm also in the 4♦ camp. I'd pass at MPs, partially because I've found people pre-empt more aggressively at MPs.

At IMPs however, I just don't see where we are getting 500, or even 200 from. We have at best two trump tricks, and on a bad day, only one. We have no outside defense, and there rates to be a few cards in dummy as well, all of which we know are working.

I think passing is very bad position to take at IMPs, and will have you -730 significantly more than +500. +200 is nice, but if we beat this, we rate to make 4♦.

I think we have to expect at least two "working" cards in dummy, and unless they are opposite declarer's shortness, declarer will have 5 or 6♠, and at least 2, maybe 3 working cards in dummy. While this could occasionally be a 500 set, it's not worth the risk in the long run IMO.

[Phil]

The play in 3N looks kind of interesting on a non-club lead (and why would South find this?), but competent defense should always beat it.

I would bid 4♦, but it kind of depends who is on my left.

[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2011-March-08, 02:57, said:

no need to be bitter.

just remember that a 7-0 fit is not the same as a 4-3 (for example).

long suits make the law break down.

In a way the Law was accurate at this deal, as usually is at 2-3 levels. Also there are negative adjustments besides positive(long suit) ones in this hand, my ♠J for example.

We have 9♦+They have 8♠=17 trumps=17 tricks

They can make 9 tricks doubled, or they could take 500 in 4♦ doubled if played from East. (The Law requires DD defence and play)

So lets see the chart for pass and 4♦. I think when pd doubles 3♠ he tends to have a good hand, i expect results like -1 or -2 and very rarely = when i have 2♠ tricks.(i wish people brought also the hands where they bid but pass was making em rich, but they dont, i knew very well that this 3♠ was making when read the topic but still answered what i thought was right)

A-3♠x= -880 instead of -500 or -200
B-3♠x-1 +200 instead of -100 or - 200
C-3♠x-2 +500 instead of +130 or +860
D-3♠x-3 +800 instead of +600
E-3♠x-4 +1100 instead of +1370

I choose pass on any day over 4♦, simply because A and E will occur much less than B and C and D. I dont even mention there may as well be only 16 trumps. But hey, it did not work for this hand Sorry pd !