Re: bad judgment or bad luck? -- followup

On May 10, 5:37 am, Charles Brenner <cbren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 6:00 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cavendish teams (IMP), vul vs not.
> > South deals.
> > South holds.
> > x
> > AK10x
> > KQ10x
> > AJxx
> > The system includes 4 card majors but not with this hand:
> > 1D    (2S)  pass  pass
> > dbl   pass  3C    pass
> > ?
>
> > Under each of these four scenarios, is it bad judgment or bad luck?
>
> > A. You, South, bid but pass was the winner.
> > B. You, South, pass but bidding was the winner.
> > C. Your partner, South, bid but pass was the winner.
> > D. Your partner, South, passed but bidding was the winner.
>
> > Charles
>
> The 3C bidder held Axxx, Jxx, and enough in the minors which I didn't
> listen to closely to make 3NT or 5C. South passed. North's thought was
> 4C, but North wondered if he might be biased by the result.
>
> Charles

I am not surprised and I do not think that North was biased.
It simply does not pay probability wise to assume in badly defined
sequences that your partner, who has not promised anything, is
completely broke. This is particularly true when opponents have
announced weakness rather than strength.
A simple, but good rule is:
If you have an ace more than your bidding so far suggested you should
make another move towards game.

Rainer Herrmann