Who is to blame
#1
Posted 2014-November-12, 05:28
AQJxxxx
KQx
void
QJx
Pd holds
x
xxxx
AKxxx
xxx
The bidding
1S (x) P (2C)
3S (p) 4S (P)
Lead is a C to the A, T of H to K and Ace, J of H. You have to lose another C another H and a S. 2 off!
Who is to blame?
#2
Posted 2014-November-12, 05:31
#3
Posted 2014-November-12, 05:35
#4
Posted 2014-November-12, 05:52
#5
Posted 2014-November-12, 05:56
cherdano, on 2014-November-12, 05:52, said:
Thanks for the vote of confidence, I agree with you and also LOL at those who assign 100% to East on the co related problem.
#6
Posted 2014-November-12, 07:01
#7
Posted 2014-November-12, 07:40
Assigning the blame % 100 to someone has nothing to do with the outcome.
You hold AQx KJx JTxx JTx, pd opens 1 NT and you bid 3 NT. If you pass with this or just invite, blame is % 100 on you. That does not guarantee that 3 NT will make % 100 of the time.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#8
Posted 2014-November-12, 08:01
#9
Posted 2014-November-12, 08:03
1♠ (dbl) 2♦
mainly for lead-directing reasons. Would have to pass if 2♦ were forcing, but where I live most play it as NF.
With this start I doubt West would bid 3♠. But maybe Ron's example wasn't the best. One can certainly construct hands where his idea of "no blame" holds without subtleties like the above. Bidding isn't an exact science, of course.
#10
Posted 2014-November-12, 08:04
the hog, on 2014-November-12, 05:56, said:
You forgot the most important option in the poll: "East, for misdescribing his hand and masterminding at his first turn to bid."
Once East passes, the EW goal shifts from having an accurate auction towards making life hard for the opponents. So, if the EW auction lacks accuracy then East's initial pass is to blame.
Changing the South bid from 2♦ to 2♣ is not a fair move either. After all, if South would just bid 2♦, East might foresee that West wouldn't have an entry to his hand.
So, LOL at your suggestion that these two problems are related. The only relation between the two is that East forgot to respond with a three control hand in both cases.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#11
Posted 2014-November-12, 08:15
There was a result. It was favorable or not favorable. There was blame or credit. ATB attributes blame. You cannot attribute blame or credit if there is no result.
Don't confuse assessing my bad bids in theory with ATB; one might lead to the other, or might lead to AT"C".
#12
Posted 2014-November-12, 11:32
I agree with the Hog that there is rarely a total blame - but going down 2 in four spades on this hand is due more to the jump rebid of spades than partner's raise to 4, IMO.
#13
Posted 2014-November-12, 15:27
the hog, on 2014-November-12, 05:35, said:
And a master of the safety play is NEVER seen without an umbrella.
I choose to play the (imp) odds and don't always make my contracts
What is baby oil made of?
#14
Posted 2014-November-12, 18:20
MrAce, on 2014-November-12, 07:40, said:
Assigning the blame % 100 to someone has nothing to do with the outcome.
You hold AQx KJx JTxx JTx, pd opens 1 NT and you bid 3 NT. If you pass with this or just invite, blame is % 100 on you. That does not guarantee that 3 NT will make % 100 of the time.
You are missing the point, Timo. The point is that those who assign 100% of the blame to East on the first board are result merchants. It is not a wonderful game. Similarly everybody would bid 4S on this and it does not make. No one is to blame 100%.
#15
Posted 2014-November-13, 04:09
the hog, on 2014-November-12, 18:20, said:
Hog you are being ridiculous
ATB for missing 3nt: of course South
however i guess we're all result merchants because this could've been the layout
just because there is one freak layout where a contract makes or goes down doesn't proove anything at all
#16
Posted 2014-November-13, 04:28
(prove, in the statistical sense )