BGonline.org Forums

"Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes

Posted By: Sam Pottle
Date: Friday, 12 February 2010, at 2:00 p.m.

In Response To: "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes (Daniel Murphy)

ND > DT is precisely what I mean by "not good enough", so I'd call it too good and not good enough despite it being a pass.

IMO the most interesting thing about the cases ND > DT > DP and ND > DP > DT is that ND > DT and ND > DP; that is, the doubler loses equity regardless of the doublee's take/pass decision. The fact that one case is a take and one a pass is of less interest, although of course the doublee will want to get it right.

Messages In This Thread

• "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
  Timothy Chow -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 7:57 p.m.
  • Rollout
    Stick -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 8:04 p.m.
  • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
    Daniel Murphy -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 11:41 p.m.
    • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
      Timothy Chow -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 1:14 a.m.
    • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
      Sam Pottle -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 1:25 a.m.
      • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
        Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 5:47 a.m.
        • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
          Sam Pottle -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 2:00 p.m.
          • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
            Timothy Chow -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 3:33 p.m.
          • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
            Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 7:53 p.m.