aguahombre Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Why not also a percentage of discarding? Is it really that much worse than ruffing low?I think we might judge discarding to be the same result as ruffing high if we were awake when doing the judging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 There would be times (looking at other dummies) where pard's hesitation could have some other purpose than to wake me up. Here, with this one, there couldn't. Perhaps partner was trying to estimate the probabilities of different heart layouts? From his point of view, if declarer has AJ10xxx a spade is necessary; if he has AQ10xx a spade will cost the contract (assuming that left to his own devices declarer would play with the odds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 I think we might judge discarding to be the same result as ruffing high if we were awake when doing the judging.True, but in this proposed ruling, ruffing high is disallowed based on the UI, while discarding is not. So 100% of 4♥=, which is based on ruffing low being the only remaining LA, isn't really right? That is, if we consider discarding an LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Perhaps partner was trying to estimate the probabilities of different heart layouts? From his point of view, if declarer has AJ10xxx a spade is necessary; if he has AQ10xx a spade will cost the contract (assuming that left to his own devices declarer would play with the odds).Yeh, you are right. But I would expect to be ruled against, and would not be happy with partner anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.