Chris xxxxx
6/10/2012 1:58:00 PM
On Jun 10, 9:04 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 4:33 am, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 1:57 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > To put it another way: If 4H is defined as last train and you bid it
> > > > > but you happen to have the heart king, then you may be in the
> > > > > uncomfortable position later of wondering whether to cue bid 5H on a
> > > > > mere king.
>
> > > > True, you need follow-up agreements, but if *all* partner needs is the
> > > > HK, he will jump to 5S over 4H.
>
> > > That idea belongs to the category of "possible small extra chance."
>
> > You may as well say that almost any specific bidding agreement belongs
> > to the category of "possible small extra chance". A 4C response to a
> > Precision 1C showing an unspecified solid 8 bagger sounds like a
> > possible small extra chance, but I've seen otherwise difficult to bid
> > grands go 1C-4C-7NT at least twice.
>
> > > I'm always uncomfortable making that kind of argument myself, the
> > > temptation for which occurs often in bridge judgment. The problem is
> > > that it is based on the unsupported hope that the issue is close
> > > enough already that whatever small edge I think of tips the scale.
> > > About bidding one can argue forever but with play problems I've
> > > sometimes calculated the main chances, estimated the "extra chance"
> > > and found that the extra chance is ten times too small to be relevant,
> > > which taught me a moral.
>
> > You don't win by passing up extra chances even if they are small.
>
> Of course, but that misses my point. I obviously don't write with
> perfect clarity -- perhaps I try to be too concise sometimes, and
> certainly I am careless sometimes -- but in this case I don't think
> you have given a fair reading to what I did write. Probably you
> reacted to my phrase '"small extra chance"' (doubly quoted now, since
> there were already quotes in the original), assumed an interpretation
> for it that only make sense out of context, and didn't take in my
> subsequent explanation.
Actually I read and reread that entire paragraph at least three times
and couldn't figure out what you meant by it. I wasn't trying to take
your remark out of context; I just couldn't work out the context...
> In particular I don't think any of your
> response makes sense if you noticed my phrase "tip the scale." That
> implies that there are two alternatives between which to judge, and a
> third point that tips the scale.
I think if you reread my response you'll see that I agree with you. I
think I said pretty much the same thing, just worded differently.
> I'm talking about when there are two alternatives and it's not easy to
> estimate/judge which is better, or by how much, or both. Some small
> argument comes to mind as a possible "tie-breaker", so it is tempting
> to accept it as such. Your example is the possibility that you can
> shave away at my complaint about the lack of a 4H cue-bid and
> consequent discomfort about showing the heart king later because in
> some of my problem hands a 5S bid will resolve the issue. I didn't
> want to get into the weeds with that -- didn't want to risk hugely
> sidetracking the conversation by discussing the exact limitations with
> that bid, i.e. How often does opener really need just the unprotected
> king in dummy? Should 5S mean that anyway? Even if it should, is there
> a risk that partner will carelessly fail to draw the inference that
> diamonds isn't a problem?
This is a straw-man argument. Why should we assume that partner
doesn't understand the methods he is playing? To someone used to Last
Train, *your* methods would look equally strange. Can your partners
draw the correct inferences from your bids? :)
> Those are rhetorical questions to explain my
> point; I'm sure we disagree to a degree and I have no interest in
> debating them. Despite our probable disagreement in degree, I hope you
> will agree in summary that at best, 5S only shaves away at one of the
> reasons I gave against 4H being Last Train, so some part of my
> argument remains.
I agree with that. I never meant to imply otherwise.
However, I think your argument about now knowing whether to cue 5H on
HK amounts a straw man argument. It's easy to assume that if methods
are unfamiliar the follow-ups are murky because they are murky to
you. But others will see it the other way around.
Clearly having a solid set of agreements with partner is worth a lot
more than whether one is playing Last Train or not. (Example that's
the same regardless of whether you are playing Last Train:
1S-3C-3H-3S-4C-4S-5D...Is this the cheapest A/K, cheapest A, or a
potential source of tricks? Which agreement is best isn't the
point...This is the sort of situation where it's better to have a
second-best agreement than no agreement.)
> The question isn't whether you should use the 5S bid when the
> opportunity arises as opposed to not using it. You should -- assuming
> it will be understood -- and I wasn't arguing you shouldn't. But
> that's irrelevant in the context of our argument, which was something
> like this:
>
> (A) There are some benefits in having 4H available as Last Train.
> (B) I mentioned several arguments against playing 4H as Last Train
> including possible awkwardness of ever showing the heart king.
> (C) You said that one of my arguments (the heart K one) is partly
> mitigated by the possibility of an asking 5S bid by opener.
>
> In this context, just tossing C into the mix is meaningless unless one
> does some kind of comparative evaluation. Does C really significantly
> refute B, or does it merely chip away a tiny corner?
If I thought the former, I would have stated it more strongly. If I
thought the latter, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all. So I thought
at least it was clear that in my opinion it was somewhere in between.
(It was also meant to suggest the larger point that follow-on
agreements are important regardless of your methods. I should have
stated that more explicitly.) I didn't care to get into more detailed
support for my opinion, like backing it up with five illustrative
examples, which you probably shouldn't fault me for, since you don't
want to, either, and I think we both agree it wouldn't be very
interesting.
> More precisely
> the relevant question is something like whether the edge from C is
> enough to tip the balance between B and A. I'm not inviting you to
> wander into those weeds and debate, as I certainly don't have the
> patience or interest to do so. I just wanted to bring up a general
> principle about decision making that I've encountered and mused about
> in many different guises over the years. I regret describing it here
> with the misleading phrase even if in quotes '"small extra chance"';
> perhaps something using the word "tie-breaker" along with a modifier
> like "supposed" or "hoped-for" would have been more suggestive of what
> I mean.
As you say, I really never figured out what you meant by that.
> > Bridge is full of such examples: playing for a show-up squeeze instead
> > of a finesse;
>
> Again, there are no alternatives to dispute. It's a case where there
> was only one line, then you improve it with the show-up squeeze. Not a
> matter of splitting a close decision, just a shot for nothing.
>
> > bidding 5NT instead of 6S when partner does jump to 5S
> > as shown above and you have the K (in case partner wants to put the
> > contract in 6NT to protect your king from the opening lead).
>
> Same again. That's not a matter of tipping any scale. It's a shot for
> nothing.
We're completely agreeing on this. We just didn't realize it at
first.
> > Where it
> > is not profitable to look for small edges is where you have two
> > completely different approaches or lines of play; it's hard to judge
> > them in absolute terms, so it's hard to compare them and say which is
> > better. But when two approaches or lines of play are highly related,
> > it may be obvious that an edge is small but real. One can't hope to
> > win by ignoring those small edges.
>
> Also true that sometimes even when lines are close one can find an
> easy way to quantify the difference between them and see which is
> better. The situation I'm trying to describe is different. I mean when
> one has two choices then thinks of some edge one way or the other,
> cannot quantify it (compared to the difference between the two
> choices), but crosses ones fingers and decides to hope that it
> overcomes that difference. It's an error I've caught myself making, so
> I thought it might be interesting to others.
I agree with that general point 100%.
Christopher Monsour