UI and AI EBU
#21
Posted 2012-January-30, 14:02
You also need to demonstrate that your inference regarding the red suit finesse is (a) valid and (b) substantially affects the chance of success in 7C.
#22
Posted 2012-January-30, 16:36
c_corgi, on 2012-January-30, 14:02, said:
You also need to demonstrate that your inference regarding the red suit finesse is (a) valid and (b) substantially affects the chance of success in 7C.
Actually if I demonstrate the first, there is no UI, so I can do what I like.
He hasn't forgotten about the signoff arrangement in the last 10 years.
The one with maverick tendencies in the partnership is me not him, what else is he supposed to do over 3♠, he doesn't exactly have a lot of space.
#23
Posted 2012-January-31, 10:49
#24
Posted 2012-January-31, 11:20
c_corgi, on 2012-January-31, 10:49, said:
What had changed was:
a) I thought any needed red suit finesse was more likely to work once LHO sacrificed
b) I thought the opps had a clue, and I wasn't getting rich out of 6♠, put partner on A, Kxxx, x, AKJxxxx for example which is entirely reasonable for his bidding and see how many tricks you take in defence, on a bad day 4 and 500 ain't going to be desperately useful.
#25
Posted 2012-January-31, 12:53
Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-31, 11:20, said:
a) I thought any needed red suit finesse was more likely to work once LHO sacrificed
b) I thought the opps had a clue, and I wasn't getting rich out of 6♠, put partner on A, Kxxx, x, AKJxxxx for example which is entirely reasonable for his bidding and see how many tricks you take in defence, on a bad day 4 and 500 ain't going to be desperately useful.
That looks like a very reasonable hand to expect from partner (given that he thinks you have one ace). It would be an excellent reason to bid 7C over 6C. No red suit finesse is required to make grand (as with many plausible hands he could hold), so the inference that it is more likely to work is irrelevant even if it is valid.
What were the two full hands by the way?
#26
Posted 2012-January-31, 16:38
c_corgi, on 2012-January-31, 12:53, said:
What were the two full hands by the way?
He could have had both red suit kings.
He had A, xx, Kxx, AKJ10xxx
I had xxx, AQJ, AQx, Qxxx
And it rolled on the heart finesse. I picked my sample hand as it minimised the tricks we had off 6♠, there are plenty of hands where 7 is cold, either both Ks or an 8th club and a K or a 7411 with the K in the 4.
#27
Posted 2012-January-31, 17:03
#28
Posted 2012-February-01, 04:51
c_corgi, on 2012-January-31, 17:03, said:
Partner had pretty much exactly what I decided he had when I decided to pass 6♣, 7 on a finesse.
We were 25 up in the match, and I decided 6♣ was more than likely a flat board, which I was happy with so I passed.
When 6♠ was bid, I decided the board was no longer flat and had to make a decision. The decision I made (wrongly) was that we weren't getting rich out of 6♠ but (correctly as it turned out) the odds of 7♣ succeeding had improved.
#29
Posted 2012-February-01, 05:29
If, on the other hand, you expect 6SX to be cheap, that implies that either 7C was always cold or the red king is well placed for them. In neither of these cases is pass followed by 7C attractive.
#30
Posted 2012-February-01, 08:53
c_corgi, on 2012-February-01, 05:29, said:
If, on the other hand, you expect 6SX to be cheap, that implies that either 7C was always cold or the red king is well placed for them. In neither of these cases is pass followed by 7C attractive.
Your analysis is terrible:
Opps could easily have KJxxxx, xx, xxxxx, void opposite Qxx, Kxxxxx, xx, xx. This could be 800 and -11 IMPS, at best it's 1100 and -7 if we lead enough trumps.
I also thought it was possible partner was void in spades (we had no clear cut way to show this) at which point 6♠ can easily be 500 without a working red king.
It was always possible 7♣ was cold, but I didn't feel I had to take a gamble as I was not losing by playing 6♣, once I might have been losing on the board, I had to think about it much harder.
Worst case would have been void, Kxxx, x, AKJ0xxxx where we might be making 7 and only taking 300 with the K♦ in the hole.
#31
Posted 2012-February-01, 11:15
#32
Posted 2012-February-01, 14:36
c_corgi, on 2012-January-30, 09:01, said:
Once it is accepted that N would not bid slam if he believed the partnership was off 2KC [while maybe bid slam off one] then once N bids slam then from S view [that the agreement was DOPE] he should** think that N believes South holds at least 2KC [as in S doesn't hold zero]. As such, it is not valid for S to assert that S has reason to KNOW some wheel has lost traction.
** S, looking at 2KC + CQ necessarily knows that N can hold at most 3KC
#33
Posted 2012-February-01, 15:49
Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-01, 08:53, said:
You are quite right. I have never once successfully determined which opponent held a side suit king which my partner had already implied holding (or not needing) himself.
Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-01, 08:53, said:
If the distribution is so extreme, is it not possible that teammates have found the save as well? Would the West hand not save if he had QJxxxx xx Kxxxx void?
Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-01, 08:53, said:
It was always possible 7♣ was cold, but I didn't feel I had to take a gamble as I was not losing by playing 6♣, once I might have been losing on the board, I had to think about it much harder.
Worst case would have been void, Kxxx, x, AKJ0xxxx where we might be making 7 and only taking 300 with the K♦ in the hole.
Crikey, that does not look like a suitable hand to ask for KC to me, but each to their own. What would 4C, 4H, 4S and 4NT mean on the hypothetical occasions when partner does not wish to employ kickback?
Is it really out of the question that opponents may have bid grand themselves? They are, after all, chasing the same defecit you are protecting. Furthermore they might have opened a Benji 2C or something, leading to a more agressive auction.
Waiting till UI has been received before thinking about the problem harder is going to lead to adverse adjustments.
campboy, on 2012-February-01, 11:15, said:
The UI demonstrably suggests that all the Keycards are held, which in turn demonstrably suggests bidding grand. This information is pleasantly reassuring in an auction where the wrong number of KC have been shown.
#34
Posted 2012-February-01, 15:52
axman, on 2012-February-01, 14:36, said:
** S, looking at 2KC + CQ necessarily knows that N can hold at most 3KC
So you're telling us we don't actually play the system on our system card which clearly states that we sign off then partner bids 6 if we need the higher number of key cards.
#35
Posted 2012-February-01, 18:27
c_corgi, on 2012-February-01, 15:49, said:
Either way all keycards are held. The difference the UI makes is that without it we must expect partner to have three keycards and a void, since he bid slam opposite none; with the UI he only needs the three keycards to bid slam opposite one.