[blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 11:55 15/06/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

>The American Way - If Law 12C3 is ever adopted in
>the ACBL, local Laws maven Rich Colker suggested
>that while the NOS gets a Law 12C3 weighted score,
>the OS gets a Law 12C2 unweighted score.

Note that this is not necessarily wrong.

If "the worst result that is at all possible" is obvious, but "the result 
among plausible results" isn't, this is a way to solve the case.

Example : in a MI case, where the normal contract is 3NT (N/S, the NOS), 
but there was MI about an overcall, you decide that, given the right 
explanation, N/S could indeed have found their contract.
You also decide that, given the error East made in interpreting West"s bid, 
there was a small possibility that he double 3NT. Give E/W the score for 
3NT doubled. You also decide it is too remote to give N/S the benefit of 
this. Give N/S the score for 3NT undoubled.

Now say there are two popular leads against 3NT : Spade (made by 70% of the 
players that had to lead from that hand against that contract) and Heart 
(made by 30%). A Spade means 9 tricks, a Heart means 11.
Give E/W the score for 11 tricks, but give N/S 50% of the score for 11 and 
50 % of the score for 9 (or is it 60 % of 9 and 40 % of 11  ?).

(note that if some lead makes 3NT down, you don't take this into account : 
see the word "favourable")

I don't see why this should be deemed wrong. It goes along with TFLB.

Best regards

     Alain



See the "Sergeant Pepper" thread.