[inquiry]

In this round, one pair will get a bye to the finals, all other surviving pairs will play for one spot to play the pair with the bye in round 5.

Therefore, I will wait a day or two to post who bid what on the hands, or the scores. Instead, i will post the hands, and any comments by the person submitting the hands (and if they suggested scores, i will include those). I do have tentative scores for all 16 hands calculated.

Scoring: MP

Problem submitted by Inquiry

Top spot = 7NT

---

[hrothgar]

This one was my fault:

I had a number of different options with this hand.

The North hand is strong enough for a MOSCITO 2♣ opening. If I had opened 2♣ we should have had an easy time finding 7N.

I chose to open 3♣ which shows a constructive 3 level preempt with two of the top three honors. I figured that this would give us the best chance of finding a cheap 3NT.

Sadly, we missed a great grand.

We also have some constructive 5 level minor suit preempts available but the hand isn't quite good enough.

A four level preempt wasn't at all appealing (still isn't)

[TimG]

inquiry, on Sep 29 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

In this round, one pair will get a bye to the finals, all other surviving pairs will play for one spot to play the pair with the bye in round 5.

Therefore, I will wait a day or two to post who bid what on the hands, or the scores. Instead, i will post the hands, and any comments by the person submitting the hands (and if they suggested scores, i will include those).  I do have tentative scores for all 16 hands calculated.

I can understand if you want to keep the results under cover while the scoring is discussed, but I don't understand why you are waiting to show your tentative scores.

Oh, can you remind us how many of the 12 pairs from the lower bracket will advance to the next round?

[inquiry]

Contracts were

7CN jdonn/gib
7CN ant590/cryzeejim
7CN bid_em_up/TylerE
6CN TimG/TgoodwinSr
6CN gnasher/catch22
6CN sohcahtoa/east4evil
6CN hanp/jlall
6CN MBodell/Javabean
6CN cherdano/rogerclee
6CN wackojack/flycycle
6CN awn/elianna
6CN Karlson/threenobob
6CN olegru/driver733
3NN peachy/Ig62
3NS Hrothgar/Free
3NS bluecalm/redds

Scores were:
7N 11, 7C 10, 6N 6, 6C 4, 3N 2, 5C 1

[hanp]

This one was my fault. Justin opened 3C, I asked for keycards with 4D and he bid 4NT showing 1 keycard plus the queen. I had lots of room available to find out more about his hand but just jumped to 6C. Shame.

In another thread Josh posted:

jdonn, on Sep 29 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Adam, we are the field. I thought we agreed last round to just take the exact ratios of pairs in the bbf field who bid game/slam and use those on a hand like this.

I was also under this impression. If so, the scores are off. 7C should score 11, 6C 6 and 3NT 1.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Sep 30 2010, 02:38 AM, said:

This one was my fault. Justin opened 3C, I asked for keycards with 4D and he bid 4NT showing 1 keycard plus the queen. I had lots of room available to find out more about his hand but just jumped to 6C. Shame.

In another thread Josh posted:

jdonn, on Sep 29 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Adam, we are the field. I thought we agreed last round to just take the exact ratios of pairs in the bbf field who bid game/slam and use those on a hand like this.

I was also under this impression. If so, the scores are off. 7C should score 11, 6C 6 and 3NT 1.

I thought that applied specifically to hands where say

6♦ makes 90% of the time
6♥ makes 50% of the time
4♥ makes 100% of the time

You don't know how to score 6♦ unless you know how much of the field is in 6♥ vs 4♥, so you make that decision based on where the field is.

I'm happy to just matchpoint every board for the scores but that's not what I was suggesting.

[hanp]

I thought we wanted an objective way to assign the scores. Here, the score for 6C depends entirely on which part of the field is in what contract. Instead of arguing about it, when can just take our field.

[cherdanno]

hanp, on Sep 30 2010, 02:38 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 29 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Adam, we are the field. I thought we agreed last round to just take the exact ratios of pairs in the bbf field who bid game/slam and use those on a hand like this.

I was also under this impression. If so, the scores are off. 7C should score 11, 6C 6 and 3NT 1.

The way I remember the discussion last time around, lots of people agreed with this principle, but Ben never commented on it. This time around, it seems similar.

[JLOGIC]

I was not under the impression that we were our own field. I don't really like that that much except for certain hands like the 7S hand on a spade hook. I think han just views this hand as similar to that one and doesn't want our field to be the way we score every hand.

[peachy]

We had system mixup with this. We used to play 3NT was "4m opener" and I forgot we had changed. Anyway, our auction was 3NT-PPP

[cherdanno]

JLOGIC, on Sep 30 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

I was not under the impression that we were our own field. I don't really like that that much except for certain hands like the 7S hand on a spade hook. I think han just views this hand as similar to that one and doesn't want our field to be the way we score every hand.

I actually don't mind much whether we use our own field, or a guess about a "typical" field (say for a 1st day of a national pair game, or of the actual field when the hand is from an old tournament).
I would really like, however, if the scores were always based on matchpoint expectancy in some field when it's possibly to compute that (rather than assigning scores vaguely reflecting the impression of how good the contract is).