| About Brink's 6♦... |
|
Dear Ed and Peter, I think Brink's views on justice are a bit odd. People who gamble on lower odds deserve to win sometimes too! How unjust it would be if you always lose having a 45% chance of winning?The decision to bid 6♦ on this hand (those who want to read the whole of Sjoert Brink's article click here; the deal in question is the second one; the NS-hands, but not Sjoert's report, is repeated below, in Ed's reply, -Ed/Peter) is borderline at best. Here is a quick analysis using Deep Finesse (a computer programme capable of analysing whether or not a contract can be made, -Ed/Peter). On 1000 hands we get: 700 hands: both contract makes 164 hands: 6♦ makes 6NT doesn't 102 hands: 6NT makes 6♦ doesn't 34 hands: both contract don't make. Let's compute the expected IMP gain/loss of bidding 6♦, with the assumption that NS at the other table bid 6NT. on 700 hands we lose 2 IMPs on 164 hands we win 16 IMPs on 102 hands we lose 17 IMPs on 34 hands it doesn't matter Overall: -510 IMPs/1000 hands = -0.5 IMP/hand Quite a big difference ! So not only the decision to bid 6♦ is worse than bidding 6NT but all the complaints about justice should be revisited. How the author would feel if his 6♦ contract makes and he was told that "it's so unjust I can't handle it!". Regards :) Piotrek Lopusiewicz Reply Ed Hoogenkamp (South) Dear Piotrek,
Of course I sent your question to Sjoert Brink himself. He doesn't agree with your analysis for the following reason: Deep Finesse looks at all the hands! This means that if East has ♥Kx, the programme will record 6NT as a make. It will play the ♥A and duck a heart: 12 tricks! Sjoert also points out that even with the diamonds 5-1, as they were, the contract still would have been made if the player with five diamonds has three spades (or even two if it is West) and the ♥K as well. I don't think we need an answer from Pete here, he will surely go down in both contracts.... Un saludo desde Barcelona Reply Peter van der Linden (North) Dear Piotrek,
There are only three tricks left to play and in order to make your contract you need to make all three of them. Earlier on you have discarded a club from the South hand. All other six clubs are still out, so East and West each have three clubs left. Nothing in the bidding or play so far has given you any information about who could have the ♣Q. In short: you have a chance of exactly 50% to make your contract: you either gamble right or wrong when you finesse for the ♣Q. This is what Sjoert means. Human players will go down if East in the given deal has ♥Kx, though Deep Finesse records the slam as made then! However I agree with your remark: 'People who gamble on lower odds deserve to win sometimes too.' Let's be glad that if you bid the best slam while others bid a (slightly) inferior slam, you will still rather often lose out. En hils fra Barcelona PS: Ed says I would go down in both 6NT and 6♦. I wonder what made him say that. After all, I made a slam as recently as 2006, while he is still waiting for his first slam to succeed in this millennium (actually, it's more his partner who is doing the waiting...). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
