On Feb 27, 6:39 am, ewleong...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:24 am, "OldPalooka" <ashut...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 10:11 pm, ewleong...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, "OldPalooka" <ashut...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:18 am, "Andrew" <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > NV vs Vul
> > > > > Online IMPs
>
> > > > > S: --
> > > > > H: KJxxx
> > > > > D: ATxare
> > > > > C: 98xxx
>
> > > > > Auction
> > > > > LHO CHO RHO You
> > > > > 3S P 4S ?
>
> > > > > Andrew
>
> > > > Contrary to other opinions here, this is close. Particularly if the
> > > > opps are sound preemptors. Hoping for a 19 or 20 trick hand is pretty
> > > > reasonable, I woould be happy to pay insurance against down 1-down 1.
> > > > And 18 is still ok if they have 10 or 11. I used to hate the bums
> > > > that would bid on this type of hand and get lucky against me. Now I
> > > > have figured out they might know more than I. And I doubt that you
> > > > could keep Lauria out with a weapon in your fist instead of the red
> > > > card.
>
> > > > == Bill
>
> > > Close? You have an eight losing trick hand, two ragged suits, and you
> > > have to emulate Tarzan by giving your best yell and climbing out on a
> > > limb at the five level, take a leap to the nearest vine and pray you
> > > have and can find some landing spot.
> > > True justice would be when 4S goes down a trick but five of anything
> > > goes for the ripe telephone number it deserves.
> > > My hero.
>
> > > Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes Eric, in 100 tries I expect to see true justice 100 times. That
> > means a telephone against air on tuesday's and a double game swing on
> > wednesday's. Both are true justice. And both cost the same if you
> > are on the wrong side of the swing. So having adjusted our risk
> > reward matrix a tad, we can try some analysis instead of pontificus.
>
> > == Bill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What analysis did you make?
> Well anyone can win a lottery using their balls instead of their
> brains.
> You do have other team mates you know.
> Perhaps, you would still like to have team mates in the future.
>
> Eric Leong
Since I claimed there is room for analysis and you claimed it is clear
cut, you can clearly provide a fair sampling proving your position.
No doubt you are keeping it in your back pocket until we call each
other idiots, cretins, and morons a few more times, so that you can
pull me out a little bit more and have a bigger cackle when you lower
the boom. Well, the field is yours because I am not going to take the
effort to generate one, but I believe it would be an interesting study
for someone who wants to spend the energy.
Meanwhile, the respondents who have taken some time to think about all
52 cards and not just the visible 13 have noted a lot of winning
positions from bidding. Perhaps their sampling is a tad optimistic
and not up to the standards of your cast iron sampling where 4S seldom
has play and is usually 2 down doubled after partner cashes a couple
of high trumps then looks around for his most devastating switch while
you were going for 800 or more 87.3%.
That is what analysis is, and neither one of us has performed much.
But hey! I can see all the warts on this hand and still note that a
fair fit and a few fitting high cards in a 30 point deck adds up to a
lot of tricks for both sides. That does not mean there isn't a
sizable risk in being active, it means there is about the same
downside in being passive. So until you do the math, an opinion that
states this case is settled in advance is about as convincing as other
creationist type arguments.
-- Bill