[blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Tim West-Meads]

Richard wrote:
> 
> Tim West-Meads assessment:
> 
> >The thinking over 4S and the 5S bid are compatible
> >with Ax,KT9xx,x,AQJxx.
> 
> The actual West's assessment of 5S:
> 
> >>West stated that in order for East to bid 5S, he
> >>needed to have HKQ fifth and the two black aces.

This is incompatible with West's 5N - since if East is showing that West 
can bid 7H straight away.  I suspect West meant that bidding 5S followed 
by 6H must show at least that.

OTOH:  The Committee found that 5S did indeed show a
very great hand, and should be considered a
grand slam invitation.

BTW I don't think KQ fifth and two aces is incompatible with having 
grand slam *interest* but one might be hesitant to bid 5S with a KQ 3rag 
suit.

West's beliefs as to the meaning of 5S are irrelevant to the length of 
time it took to bid - it is what *East* believes the bid to show that 
will affect that.

> >>He did not believe his partner could have had a
> >>two-suited hand, since he would have bid 4NT with
> >>that.
 
> Tim West-Meads assessment:
> 
> >5N must show a degree of interest in a grand and I
> >am surprised that East bid only 6H at that point,
> >and in tempo.
> 
> The actual West's assessment of 5NT:
> 
> >>He had bid 5NT in order to find out what 5S was
> >>based on, and raised to seven when he found out
> >>it was based on hearts. He would have passed 6C.

Why is planning to pass 6C and bid 7H over 6H not a degree of interest 
in grand?  

> Tim West-Meads assessment:
> 
> >A slow 6H bid would surely show extras in the H
> >suit and render 7H illegal but since NS didn't
> >suggest such a break I can't see anything in the
> >UI to suggest bidding on over passing 6H.
> 
> Richard Hills assessment:
> 
> Since a peer of the East-West partnership, West
> himself, believes that East's 5S denies a two-
> suited hand,

West might believe that - East clearly doesn't:)

> and that West's 5NT is not a grand
> slam try but instead a choice of slams query, it

It can't be a "choice of slams" query if partner has (in his eyes) 
denied a 2 suiter.  If he was planning to pass 6C nor is he playing 
partner for a strong 3 suiter.  Thus he must believe that partner has a 
strong single suiter prepared to go to the 6 level and, having chosen to 
go via 5S rather than directly, must also have grand slam interest.

Of course if West believes that the 6H bid now shows a strong 
single-suiter with H he has no LA to bidding 7H.

> seems to me that Tim's conclusion is based on the
> false premise that Tim's style in high-level
> competitive slam auctions is uniformly consistent
> with the style of other experts.

I don't think "other experts" is correct usage since I'm not an expert 
player myself.  West's testimony is self-serving (since it gives him no 
LA to 7H) and while it *may* be the gospel truth I believed a pinch of 
salt should be applied as to possible alternative interpretations to the 
auction (mainly because the evidence from the bidding says that East was 
not on the same page as West's explanations).

BTW does anyone else find the following a bit curious:
> But in the end, the feeling in the Committee
> prevailed that a break in tempo of 4-5 minutes
> is very long and contains substantial
> unauthorized information

Perhaps it's because I'm not an expert but after 20 seconds I know 
partner has "a problem" and can draw some inferences about the sort of 
hand he has.  After a further 3m50secs I'm none the wiser - once he has 
broken tempo *at all* (and thus made UI available) he has made his own 
problem more complex because he has to plan the bidding knowing I have 
UI. I can't think of a single instance where the *length* of thought 
(either by partner or my opps) has given me additional clues about their 
holdings.

Tim