bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 18:41, said:
When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?
Because it would be inappropriate.
A weighted result might be correct if East or West had a decision to make at some point in the auction. East's actions are constrained by the UI, and I can't think of an auction where he would have more than one legal option. West will decline any slam try, so we shouldn't award any proportion of a sequence where West bids slam or cooperates.
For example, suppose that we think East's logical alternatives are:
- Pass
- Bid 5
♥
- Cue-bid 5
♣ then pass 5
♥
- Drive to slam.
The first three are suggested over the last one by the UI, and are therefore illegal. Hence we should give EW 100% of 6
♥ -1.
Or suppose that we think that driving slam is not an LA, so his LAs are:
- Pass
- Bid 5
♥
- Cue-bid 5
♣ then pass 5
♥
The first two are suggested over the third one by the UI, so East is obliged to cue-bid, but West will sign off. Hence we should give EW 100% of 5
♥=.
Quote
I would adjust to
.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50
+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650
You cannot do that unless there is a credible legal sequence to each contract. When you decided on this adjustment, what sequences did you have in mind?
[Edited to improve wording of second paragraph.]
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-26, 10:43