[pbleighton]

3NT and double are very close, but when in doubt I bid 3NT.

Peter

[Apollo81]

the likely bad breaks on this hand make 3NT a lot more appealing to me than playing in a suit (diamonds at least)

lets have the actual deal

[han]

I also think double is clear.

By the way, given that there are far fewer than 1000 posters here a player that is better than 99.9% must be better than all.

[Fluffy]

Hannie, on Jun 28 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

By the way, given that there are far fewer than 1000 posters here a player that is better than 99.9% must be better than all.

He is better than anyone most of the time, but what if he is hungry or sleepy?, when you put state of the posters into the ecuation there are zounds of posters out there

[foo]

What are people planning to use as trump tricks vs 3♠X?

Presumably the WJO'er is not suicidal nor stupid. Bidding in a misfit auction between 2 bidding opponents and opposite a passed pd should mean they have at the least a very nice trump suit. Maybe they are even a card longer than normal as extra insurance. 8(221) w/ ♠KQJxxxxx and no other values means We are only taking this for -300 (and 3N rates to be a cakewalk).
One more loser than that means We are only taking 3♠X for -500 (and 3N still rates to be easy).

Sure We presumably have ~29 HCP between Us (assuming pd did not open a light 1♦; say a 6- loser < 12 count w/ say 6+♦'s.), but pd has neither
a= shown ♥ support nor
b= shown ♠ values nor
c= shown a big hand or 5- loser hand.

I certainly agree that taking 8 tricks is easier than taking 9, and if I was on lead and could guarantee A of trumps, then trump as the 1st 2 tricks I'd be a lot more sanguine about defending 3♠X.

At MPs, It's clear to play the odds and X.
At IMPs, the scoring table gives Us another consideration.

If we bid game and are wrong, it's less of a swing than if We defend 3♠X and are wrong.


Given the consensus and the DD commentary from one of our resident experts watching on vuegraph, it appears the correct decision on this board is to X and hope pd leaves it in. Still, I'm not sure that's the proper SD decision under these circumstances.

[FrancesHinden]

Those who are doubling are doubling for TAKE-OUT

[foo]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 28 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Those who are doubling are doubling for TAKE-OUT

Oh, you mean our 2 or 3 suited hand with 4 ♣'s and strength appropriate for the auction isn't sure what to do? Fair Enough.

...

Trust me, I completely understand that X is for T/O here. I just am having a hard time believing the OP hand is that flexible.

X should show Convertible Values. The OP hand looks more like an attacking hand than that.

X means pd is going to have to make an "8 vs 10 or 11" decision since it is highly unlike they have a ♠ stop. Faced with the prospect of trying to take 8 tricks on defense vs trying to take 10-11 tricks declaring, Opener may very well in desperation pass here.

I'm reminded of a Bob Hamman quote "When 3N is a reasonable option, bid it."

[skjaeran]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 28 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

I was commentating on this hand at the time, and I thought double was obvious, with a second choice a natural 4NT (but I wanted a second spade stop for that).

So was I, and I agree with Frances that 4NT natural would be a good bid if I had a 2nd ♠ stopper.

As it is, I'd have doubled with this hand.

[Walddk]

As far as I recall (I was commentating too), the commentators did not disagree. All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

The 9th will not be invited again

Roland

[foo]

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

The 9th will not be invited again

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

[Walddk]

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

The 9th will not be invited again 

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

"Den som kun tager spøg for spøg
og alvor kun alvorligt,
han og hun har faktisk fattet
begge dele dårligt!"

"Taking fun as simply fun,
and earnestness in earnest
shows how thoroughly thou none,
of the two discernest."

(Piet Hein, Danish scientist and poet, 1905-1996)

[han]

Edited, I guess Roland was joking.

[skjaeran]

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 08:14 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

The 9th will not be invited again 

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

"Taking fun as simply fun, and earnestness in earnest
shows how thoroughly thou none, of the two discernest."

(Piet Hein, Danish scientist and poet, 1905-1996)

Great translation!

[han]

Btw, there is a well known Dutch song about a guy named Piet Hein that lived much earlier than the Dane. (won a major sea batte during the war against Spain, I would guess early 17th century)

"Piet Hein, Piet Hein, Piet Hein his name is small
But his deeds are large, his deeds are large he has won the Silverfleet
He has won, has won, the silverfleet."

(possibly not as good a translation as Roland's)

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Jun 28 2007, 08:26 PM, said:

Btw, there is a well known Dutch song about a guy named Piet Hein that lived much earlier than the Dane. (won a major sea batte during the war against Spain, I would guess early 17th century)

"Piet Hein, Piet Hein, Piet Hein his name is small
But his deeds are large, his deeds are large he has won the Silverfleet
He has won, has won, the silverfleet."

(possibly not as good a translation as Roland's)

The war against Spain was in 1628-29.

[foo]

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 28 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

All but one among 9 at the two tables would have doubled.

The 9th will not be invited again 

=Really=? was the "sin" their disagreeing with the other commentators or something more interesting than that?

"Den som kun tager spøg for spøg
og alvor kun alvorligt,
han og hun har faktisk fattet
begge dele dårligt!"

"Taking fun as simply fun,
and earnestness in earnest
shows how thoroughly thou none,
of the two discernest."

(Piet Hein, Danish scientist and poet, 1905-1996)

Wonderful poem. I have no idea how or in what way it answers my question.

La Rochefoucauld on superiority, Maxim 127
"Le vrai moyen d'être trompé, c'est de se croire plus fin que les autres."

"The truest means of being misled is to believe oneself finer than others."
or
"The surest way to be cheated is to think one's self more cunning than others."

[bid_em_up]

How about I put it bluntly then:

The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest).

There, does that help?

"The 9th will not be invited back. " tends to indicate something said in jest. If he were serious, there would be no on the end of it.

At least thats my interpretation of it.

[Walddk]

bid_em_up, on Jun 28 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

How about I put it bluntly then:

The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest).

There, does that help?

"The 9th will not be invited back.  "  tends to indicate something said in jest.  If he were serious, there would be no    on the end of it.

At least thats my interpretation of it.

Not only did you interpret it correctly, you also seem to have a sense of humour. Some don't; that's life, albeit a sad life as I see it.

Roland

[foo]

Ah. I did not realize and were supposed to be interpreted equivalently.

"Smiley" has indeeed traditionally been used for the purpose of "alerting" humorous intent. Rolling your eyes usually denotes a somewhat different emotion.

[foo]

Based on some further thought, I'm changing my vote from 3N to 4♣.

I think up until now this was suggested only by KenRexford.
I now think he's got the best idea.

(No, I still do not like X)