lamford Posted August 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 ... if it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king.On reflection I was wrong to upvote this. If it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king, only if there was an LA to playing the king. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 OK, West cannot have Kx of clubs, as East has five diamonds, three plus hearts and two plus spades. West know that East has a singleton club from the authorised information (where it matters South is 5-1-3-4). But I still think you are right that declarer will probably play ace and another. So, I would adjust on this hand. I agree that the only test is whether playing the king is the only LA. The fact that his partner has the queen of clubs is UI, despite the WBFLC minute.You mean exactly 2 spades- declarer cashed the spades- more than 2 would be a spoiled pack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted August 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 You mean exactly 2 spades- declarer cashed the spades- more than 2 would be a spoiled pack.Yes, a typo sorry. Original corrected, and thanks for picking it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 West might counter saying that south's failure to try for grand should mean that he hasn't got ♣Q.Equally we could argue that South can't have his actual hand, because that would make his 4NT bid absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 On reflection I was wrong to upvote this. If it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king, only if there was an LA to playing the king.I was merely discussing the consequences of gnasher's claim that "without the infraction West would not have played the king", which is why I quoted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted August 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 I was merely discussing the consequences of gnasher's claim that "without the infraction West would not have played the king", which is why I quoted it.I agreed with the part that if the MPC of the LOOT is AI you adjust to some percentage of playing the king; I think a weighted score is allowed, but I am happy to be corrected. I disagreed with your assertion that "if what West used was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king." I think, post-Reveley, you decide whether there was an LA to playing the king, and if you decide there was, you give him 0% of playing the king. If you decide there was not, you give him 100% of playing the king. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted August 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 Equally we could argue that South can't have his actual hand, because that would make his 4NT bid absurd.That depends on how much confidence South has in North. He would not want to bid 4D and hear a slow 4S from partner holding Qxxx xx Qxx AKQx or even Qxxx Qxx xx AKQx, unsure whether 4H is last train, reverse last train, or a cue-bid. And I would not have much confidence in North. 7 losers and AKx in partner's shortage with a 4-3-3-3 hand and he shows extras with 3S? Many would have bid 4S instead. I surveyed a couple of strong players and they both bid RKCB on the South hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 I agreed with the part that if the LOOT is AI you adjust to some percentage of playing the king; I think a weighted score is allowed, but I am happy to be corrected. I disagreed with your assertion that "if what West used was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king." I think, post-Reveley, you decide whether there was an LA to playing the king, and if you decide there was, you give him 0% of playing the king. If you decide there was not, you give him 100% of playing the king.I agree with you. But I was taking for granted gnasher's assertion that he wouldn't have played the king without the infraction. In that case, either there is an LA to playing the king or there is sufficient AI to stop there being an LA, and in the latter case I would say that it is the AI which West has used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted August 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 I agree with you. But I was taking for granted gnasher's assertion that he wouldn't have played the king without the infraction. In that case, either there is an LA to playing the king or there is sufficient AI to stop there being an LA, and in the latter case I would say that it is the AI which West has used.OK; then we agree. 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.