[PhantomSac]

gnasher, on Mar 6 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

PhantomSac, on Mar 6 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

Given your preempting style I am surprised you don't think partner has 1-6 in the reds that often.

When someone gives me a bridge problem, I answer it in the context in which it was given. In this case that means that I assume I'm opposite a typical member of these forums. If the original posted wanted to know what I'd do opposite me, he'd have said so.

Heh fair enough, I think having 6 card suits is fairly normal for most people w/r, but it depends a lot who it is I guess.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 6 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 6 2010, 02:47 AM, said:

Frankly I find this a very tough problem, but remembering they not only bid slam but tried for a grand inclines me to save.

"They" didn't try for grand slam. RHO tried for a grand slam. RHO is the one with the club length. His decision to make a grand-slam try cannot have been influenced by knowledge of club shortage opposite, because he couldn't have known about it.

Putting it more succinctly, it would be illogical to say "RHO made a grand-slam try, so LHO is likely to have a singleton club."

It would be quite logical to say "RHO tried for a grand, therefore he is likely to have more of the missing assets that LHO might have had than otherwise, therefore to justify his 5♥ bid LHO is more likely to have longer hearts and thus shorter clubs."

It would also be quite logical to say "RHO tried for a grand, therefore he is more likely to have read his partner for club shortage due to longer clubs in his own hand than otherwise."

It would also be quite logical to say "RHO tried for a grand, therefore any of the small chances to beat a small slam other than 2 clubs tricks have essentially vanished."

It would also be quite logical to say "RHO tried for a grand, therefore they are more likely than otherwise to wrongly bid a grand over my sacrifice."

gnasher, on Mar 6 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

Quote

Also that it may even be a good save against game.

They're not in game. At the moment they're in 6♥. If 6♥ is going down, our current expectation is +100. -800 or -500 is a lousy save against +100.

My comment was quite obviously in reference to where the other table might be, not in reference to where our table is now.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Mar 6 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 6 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

Quote

Also that it may even be a good save against game.

They're not in game. At the moment they're in 6♥. If 6♥ is going down, our current expectation is +100. -800 or -500 is a lousy save against +100.

My comment was quite obviously in reference to where the other table might be, not in reference to where our table is now.

Yes, but my point is that whether it's a good save against game isn't relevant. The result of saving isn't

  IMPs([Score at the other table] - [Score if we save])

It is

  IMPs([Score at the other table] - [Score if we save]) - IMPs([Score at the other table] - [Score if we don't save])

Anyway, even if we incorrectly consider only what happens at the other table, if teammates score +650 when par was +300, -500 isn't a good save: it's just a waste of four of the eight IMPs that our teammates had won.

[jdonn]

Well I do admit it would have been a better point by me if the scoring were matchpoints. Although I find it awfully frustrating when you correct my use of the word "they" as referring to one opponent, then say things like "it's just a waste of four of the eight IMPs that our teammates had won." when our teammates hadn't won any imps (obviously that takes a score from each table, not a score from one table against par).

[gnasher]

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem picky. I was only trying to emphasise that the grand-slam try was a solo effort rather than a combined one.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Mar 6 2010, 06:12 PM, said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem picky.  I was only trying to emphasise that the grand-slam try was a solo effort rather than a combined one.

Indeed, you can say that again.

BTW, here's a question for all those who would consider sacrificing. What would you bid with that East hand over partner's 5♥ ?

[whereagles]

I don't think the club singleton with declarer is likely, so I would have passed.