From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Do you go on?
Summary: Slightly different angles
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: perspective
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: It is fun to double for penalty
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:22:49 GMT

>>> N-S vul      AKxx            N   E   S   W    
>>> Matchpoints  AQTxx           P   1D  1H  1S   
>>>              xxx             P   2C  P   P    
>>>              K               2H  P   P   3C   
>>>                              P   P   ?        

Bharat, on someone else's comments:  I generally agree with what he said,
but would like to bring up some points that seem to be overlooked by
people, namely the question of style.

>>  ...partner is likely to have four hearts ...
>With 4 hearts I would raise on 95% of all hands -- if N *does* have 4
>hearts and did NOT raise right away it is because he has very few (and
>very badly placed) HCP (like the DQ etc) and a very square shape ...

Yes, it is commonly ACCEPTED practice to raise on 95% of hands with 4 card
heart support, but this particular north may not be such a playr.  Many
good players have their ideosyncrasies about various things, including one
A. Roth who advocates not raising in situations such as this without very
solid values.  Notice that on many hands a preemptive jump raise, even if
available, is not atrtractive at this vulnerability.  With 17 hcps, South
can realistically consider the probability that North, with NO DEFENSE
whatsoever, is hesitant to bring any encouragement to partner or expose
the degree of fit for opponents.

[One hand in the last year's Trials (1991) featured someone raising partner
on a very weak hand, leading to partner doubling a cold contract, which was
pulled into 1100 at favorable!  Even without such extreme misfortune, it is
easy to see how a  raise on very scant values may lead to a later
competitive double by partner followed by pull and rhythm double by
opponent, which is not exactly desirable at the score.]

>[partner's having 4 hearts] is so unlikely that you don't even think about it
A preliminary BOREL run with the above in mind indicates that 4 hearts
isn't nearly as bad a chance as Bharat thinks, PROVIDED that North
discriminates in his/her raises, which is of course not Standard.

>...  would have definitely raised with 4 hearts strained to raise with 3 ...

Note that partner is a favorite to hold AT LEAST three hearts -- see below.

>  GIVEN THAT PARTNER DID NOT RAISE HEARTS RIGHT AWAY, the number of hearts
>partner has is in some sense IRRELEVANT...

It is NOT irrelevant if partner regards general defense as a pre-requisite
for free bids (yes, out of favour, I know) and does not subscribe to the
bergenesque "nine trumps means invulnerable" theory.

>paradoxically, you may fare better when partner has ONLY two hearts,

I somehow feel strange that no one has brought up this point, but please
note that in today's climate of FOUR_CARD overcalls, partner can NOT afford
to back in with that doubleton heart without a pretty decent all-around
hand, which we know that s/he DOESN'T have!  [Opener= 12, responder=7
(assuming weak jump shifts) plus 16 gets 35... partner may have at mosta
broken seven count!  I for one would not dare to back into what may be a
blood bath without at least three trumps, when aprtner cannot take a second
call!] 

[On getting doubled in 3H with 3C "cold".]
>The double is a totally free shot and I would expect any pair that has
>even a smidge of MP experience to whack 3H on this auction.

Just a quick poll.

How many people around subscribe to that theory?  

Kit Woolsey, who has to be regarded as one of the matchpoint experts
around, once had this to say in the MSC, of the comments that went the same
way ("well, if it makes we get a bad score!"):

Now., I like matchpoint doubles as much as anyone, but it still seems to me
that in a good field one can expect a good proportion of the pairs the
other way to have competed to the par contract, and to double now can be
turning in your 25% for a round zero.

Since doubling at this score is more or less a top-or-bottom affair, it
seems to me that this "free" shot against a "good" contract should not be
taken without half as much odds as your best estimate of percentage of
field in the same contract plus that of the alternative contract by your
side going down!

(E.g. if they competed over my 3C and I estimate that they do so at 40% of
the tables and 3C will go down some 20% of the time I should double when I
am one-to-two to beat the contract--- the extra 3.3% was for the
psychological value of not doubling making partscores :-) 

Some food for thought......

Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA