tempo - too quick

[gnasher]

Lets' assume it's IMPs. For a vulnerable slam to be good, it needs to be 38% or better. If, without the UI, most Easts would consider that slam has a 15% chance of succeeding, it's not an LA, so we'd give East 100% of 5♥=.

 

I think what you might be suggesting is a scenario like this:

With UI, we expect 6♥ to make 37% of the time

Without UI, we expect 6♥ to make 39% of the time

 

These would be estimates, obviously. If we think the slam odds are in that zone, some players will be more optimistic, so bidding slam is an LA.

If this difference in expectations is demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are met, so bidding slam is required by law, and we give East 100% of 6♥-1.

If the difference in expectations is not demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are not met, so East's actions are unconstrained. Then we would give a weighted score.

 

I think that the difference in slam expectations between the auction with UI and the auction without UI is rather larger than that, so I think it will always be demonstrable. Therefore I think a weighted score will never be appropriate.

Edited April 27, 2012 by gnasher

[Cyberyeti]

Lets' assume it's IMPs. For a vulnerable slam to be good, it needs to be 38% or better.

 

Sorry am I missing something, 1430 vs 680 = 750, -100 vs 650 = 750 so why 38% ? Looks like 13/-13 or 50%.

 

If, without the UI, most Easts would consider that slam has a 15% chance of succeeding, it's not an LA, so we'd give East 100% of 5♥=.

 

Not necessarily true, it will succeed more than 15% of the time as in some cases you'd bid 5♣ and partner would bid 6. But if I think it's the right action 15% of the time, 25% of people might consider taking it and 15% take it, that's enough for it to be a LA IIRC.

 

I think what you might be suggesting is a scenario like this:

With UI, we expect 6♥ to make 37% of the time

Without UI, we expect 6♥ to make 39% of the time

 

These would be estimates, obviously. If we think the slam odds are in that zone, some players will be more optimistic, so bidding slam is an LA.

If this difference in expectations is demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are met, so bidding slam is required by law, and we give East 100% of 6♥-1.

If the difference in expectations is not demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are not met, so East's actions are unconstrained. Then we would give a weighted score.

 

I think that the difference in slam expectations between the auction with UI and the auction without UI is rather larger than that, so I think it will always be demonstrable. Therefore I think a weighted score will never be appropriate.

A better example would be where the odds of 5♥, 5♣ and drive to slam stay approximately in proportion, but pass changes wildly.

 

so Pass 70, 5♥ 15, 5♣ 10, 6♥ 5 goes to Pass 10, 5♥ 45, 5♣ 30, 6♥ 15. Basically the suggestion of pass is very strong, but among the others, it doesn't disproportionately discriminate between the options.

[gnasher]

Sorry am I missing something, 1430 vs 680 = 750, -100 vs 650 = 750 so why 38% ? Looks like 13/-13 or 50%.

Sorry, yes, I must be going mad. Even though I knew we were talking about bidding slam, for some reason I had the odds for game fixed in my mind.

[gnasher]

A better example would be where the odds of 5♥, 5♣ and drive to slam stay approximately in proportion, but pass changes wildly.

 

so Pass 70, 5♥ 15, 5♣ 10, 6♥ 5 goes to Pass 10, 5♥ 45, 5♣ 30, 6♥ 15. Basically the suggestion of pass is very strong, but among the others, it doesn't disproportionately discriminate between the options.

In that example, bidding 6♥ is not an LA. If you think that bidding 6♥ has a 15% chance, how many people will think that bidding 6♥ has a 50% chance?

 

Cue-bidding 5♣ might be an LA, but so what? Partner will sign off in 5♥, so bidding 5♣ is equivalent to bidding 5♥.

[Cyberyeti]

In that example, bidding 6♥ is not an LA. If you think that bidding 6♥ has a 15% chance, how many people will think that bidding 6♥ has a 50% chance?

 

Cue-bidding 5♣ might be an LA, but so what? Partner will sign off in 5♥, so bidding 5♣ is equivalent to bidding 5♥.

You misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm not saying 6♥ has a 15% chance, I'm saying I (hypothetically) assess that there's a 15% chance of it being the best bid. This means in practice that 15% of the time I will bid 5♣, partner will bid 5♥ and we'll make 6. If partner would accept the invite anyway, I'd rather make the invite as there will be more hands where partner will correctly decline.

 

There may well be a decent chance that 6 makes.

 

Again for a LA I believe 20% of people have to consider the bid and a few make it, which is not a high threshold.

[AlexJonson]

 

I still think that my comment was valid. If your comment was based on some other thread completely then why not post to that thread? My comment was based on the idea, which seems reasonable to me, that your comment was related to this thread.

 

This thread is coming to a natural end so..

 

1. You have misunderstood my point about threads/sub-threads. Maybe I expressed it badly.

 

2. I didn't comment on the OP because there is little to go on and a common view had emerged.

 

As it happens I disagree with the common view.

 

a) If I had the opening agreement in the OP with the handy high ODB follow up, I would never forget or need any time to bid it.

 

b) If I were East, a moderate player maybe, why should I not go for penalty with three aces, Why am I accused of something or required to try for completely stupid slams (imo of course).