[lycier]

---

3♦ says 12-16 total points....

[Bbradley62]

lycier, on 2014-April-28, 09:25, said:

3♦ says 12-16 total points....

We've been through this repeatedly...
Total points means high card points plus points for shortness (with an adjustment to avoid double-counting shortness with honors). So:
4 points for ♠A
1 point for ♠J
2 points for ♥Q
2 points for ♦Q
1 point for ♦J
2 points for ♣doubleton
12 total points
No lies here.

East, on the other hand, doesn't have the 14 that his explanation indicates, but that's because the explanation (not the bid) is bad.

[lycier]

It is No-no.
The precondition of hand evaluation should be one or more suits fit, and no tricks if no fit.

[1eyedjack]

The a priori probability of a fit is somewhere around 80%+. Should we disregard that when making an initial evaluation of the hand?

I am no great supporter of GIB's method of hand evaluation. But it is I think sensible to make some allowance for shape at the outset.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2014-April-28, 12:46, said:

The a priori probability of a fit is somewhere around 80%+. Should we disregard that when making an initial evaluation of the hand?

I am no great supporter of GIB's method of hand evaluation. But it is I think sensible to make some allowance for shape at the outset.

The bid Lycier is questioning was not made at the outset; it was made at West's third chance to bid. By that point in the auction, the probability of a fit is significantly less than the original 80%.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-28, 13:55, said:

The bid Lycier is questioning was not made at the outset; it was made at West's third chance to bid. By that point in the auction, the probability of a fit is significantly less than the original 80%.

oh yes I completely agree with you, and Lycier. Did not read it properly.