[whereagles]

HeartA, on May 9 2005, 06:47 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 9 2005, 11:51 AM, said:

1. I very, very much doubt the chance to hear 2/3C is 50%. More like 15% or so if you ask me.

2. Besides, hearing 3C isn't a problem. That's an invitational hand, so you can correct to 3NT and all is well.

If my pd dbl with such a hand and "correct" my 3C to 3NT, he wouldn't be my pd anymore.

In other words, people that bid hands their way, not yours, are unworthy of being your partner.

[pbleighton]

"That's a self-serving statement."

Nope - it's a statement of fact.

Peter

[whereagles]

Here's another statement of fact: you do not know how to distinguish judgement from claims.

[pbleighton]

"Here's another statement of fact: you do not know how to distinguish judgement from claims."

Big words. You might try looking at my argument. The singleton club (versus 4-4 in the majors) means that a higher percentage of the time partner will be longer in clubs than in a specific major. This is basic, irrefutable conditional probability. It doesn't prove that double is the wrong bid. It does show that a club response will happen more than 15% of the time, as you claimed.

Peter

[luke warm]

yesterday i couldn't even spell philosopher, today i are one

i think whereagles is saying that your statement, "You are ignoring conditional probability" is a knowledge claim... he's saying that you can't make such a claim, whether he is or is not in fact ignoring conditional probability... yeah, it's a small thing, but still ... if you want to be a stickler for it, "in my opinion (ie, judgment), you are ignoring... etc"

this is fun

[HeartA]

whereagles, on May 9 2005, 02:36 PM, said:

In other words, people that bid hands their way, not yours, are unworthy of being your partner.

Let me rephrase your statement: I don't play with players whose way of bidding are fundamentally different from mine.

[pbleighton]

"i think whereagles is saying that your statement, "You are ignoring conditional probability" is a knowledge claim... he's saying that you can't make such a claim, whether he is or is not in fact ignoring conditional probability... yeah, it's a small thing, but still ... if you want to be a stickler for it, "in my opinion (ie, judgment), you are ignoring... etc""

LOL. Do I detect another English major in the Forum?

OK, how about:

Whereagles' statement that, in this auction, partner will bid 2C or 3C in response to a takeout double only 15% of the time is in direct contradiction to conditional probability, as applied to this auction.

Better?



Peter

[Echognome]

I certainly didn't mean to drum up so much controversy when posting this. I like the idea that a second round double is takeout of opp's second suit. My only question is how would you bid

♠ AQx
♥ x
♦ AQJxx
♣ Kxxx

(1♦) - P - (1NT) - P
(2♣) - ?

I guess you pass twice as the hand is not likely to come up this century?

I was playing with an unknown partner, so was a bit nervous to bid without any agreement, but I think the arguments made are sensible.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on May 10 2005, 01:59 AM, said:

I certainly didn't mean to drum up so much controversy when posting this.  I like the idea that a second round double is takeout of opp's second suit.  My only question is how would you bid

♠ AQx
♥ x
♦ AQJxx
♣ Kxxx

(1♦) - P - (1NT) - P
(2♣) - ?

I guess you pass twice as the hand is not likely to come up this century?

I was playing with an unknown partner, so was a bit nervous to bid without any agreement, but I think the arguments made are sensible.

I'd overcall 1NT from the get go...

[mike777]

Disagree with Richard on this one. I would pass twice and not overcall 1nt. I understand my view may be minority one here. Rare to see many players pass with any kind of opening strength let alone pass twice.

[awm]

Echognome, on May 9 2005, 05:59 PM, said:

I certainly didn't mean to drum up so much controversy when posting this. I like the idea that a second round double is takeout of opp's second suit. My only question is how would you bid

♠ AQx
♥ x
♦ AQJxx
♣ Kxxx

(1♦) - P - (1NT) - P
(2♣) - ?

I guess you pass twice as the hand is not likely to come up this century?

I was playing with an unknown partner, so was a bit nervous to bid without any agreement, but I think the arguments made are sensible.

I would pass throughout. This hand is exceedingly unlikely. Consider that opener has at least 8 minor suit cards, we have 9, and 1NT bidder has at least 7, leaving partner with at most 2. Most partners bid with 2 cards in the minors, unless totally broke. If I pass here it is not unlikely partner will balance.

Also, it is not totally clear to me that we are setting 2♣. If the opponents have 9 clubs and LHO is short in diamonds, this hand may not take particularly many tricks. If/when LHO preferences back to 2♦, I can double THAT, and it should be penalty.

The problem with bidding 1NT at first turn, is that my partners inevitably transfer to hearts when I do this. Switch the hearts and clubs and I would be happy to overcall 1NT at first turn.

[Fluffy]

First hand is a 1♥ or 1♠ overcall, if didn't do so pass rest of the bidding for sure.

Second had is either bid 1NT wich seems quite reasonable, or pass the rest of the bidding. Both are ok, I'm not sure but would probably pass.

[HeartA]

Echognome, on May 9 2005, 05:59 PM, said:

I certainly didn't mean to drum up so much controversy when posting this. I like the idea that a second round double is takeout of opp's second suit. My only question is how would you bid

♠ AQx
♥ x
♦ AQJxx
♣ Kxxx

(1♦) - P - (1NT) - P
(2♣) - ?

I guess you pass twice as the hand is not likely to come up this century?

I was playing with an unknown partner, so was a bit nervous to bid without any agreement, but I think the arguments made are sensible.

This reminds of a hand we played a few days ago in a tournament. Pd's hand was ♠-,♥AKxx,♦Kxxxx,♣Axxx. The bidding went

South pd North me
1♦ P 1♠ P
2♣ X All Passed

we got 9 tricks (-4, forgot the vulnerability) and very good imp (maybe top, had it been MPs)

[whereagles]

My statements are as follows:

1. pbleighton didn't know if I had thought of conditional probability when I suggested 2C. Therefore he should not claim I was ignoring it. It's usually a bad idea to underestimate your arguent. FACT: I am, and always was, fully aware of the theory of conditional probability.

2. It is my judgement that EVEN considering conditional probability, pard won't bid 2C more than 15% of the time. That wasn't perhaps clear the 1st time I said it, but I make it clear now.

3. It may be true that chances pard will bid 2C are bigger than 15%, and could even reach 50%. But I will not accept that without calculational evidence to back it up. Sorry.

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on May 9 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Whereagles' statement that, in this auction, partner will bid 2C or 3C in response to a takeout double only 15% of the time is in direct contradiction to conditional probability, as applied to this auction.

most excellent, dude