With only them vulnerable, partner open 1 club (possibly a "convenient" minor) in second seat. My right hand opponent overcalled four hearts (showing eight). I passed with the following.
♠ AT8652 ♡2 ♢93 ♣ AQJ7.
They made it, giving us an average minus score. Others did better to bid four spades, and after I worked this out at home, I felt that I probably had enough information to do the same. My premises include the following:
- I had 11 high card points; partner had at least 12-13 to open, so we had at least 23-24.
- The opponents had the bulk of high card points in hearts. Giving them 10 (they actually had 9 because partner had the singleton jack) meant that they would have something like one ace and one king at most in the remaining suits.
- The opponents would probably have 10 hearts between them (they actually had 11), leaving us three, meaning we would have 23 cards in the three remaining suits.
- Given 3, above, our worst possible distribution in the three non-heart suits would be 8-8-7, giving us at least one eight card fit between spades and clubs. If our short suit were diamonds (likely, since I was short), there would be a good chance of a double fit. This, in fact, was the case.
- Given my singleton, we had one loser in hearts, and two more losers from the side ace and king attributed to the opponents under 2, above, meaning we probably had at least ten tricks. Put another way, we should have at least nine tricks with an eight card spade fit and 23 or so high card points. Given a double fit in the black suits (and resulting shortness in the red), the chances for a tenth trick seem excellent.
Is the above analysis sound, or was it reasonable to pass because of hidden flaws in my reasoning?