One hand in particular in the semi final seemed to illustrate the concept of luck as Luck Under Current Knowledge
All the other 3 tables all played in the 4H. At one table, East opened 1S, competed to 3S and defended 4H by North making 10. The two other tables were in 4H by South (after a 3S bid by East) and made their 12 tricks.Clearly you could say that EW was very unlucky on this hand at this particular table.
But my question is:
If it was plain old luck, when did this bad/good luck start
Did E open a windown of opportunity and brought bad luck with the 3S bid and did NS capitalise on it by bidding a "lucky slam"
At the other table, was the 1S bid made by East a bit of L-U-C-K?
Any opinions?
Seems like just regular luck to me - no acronyms required! :)
ReplyDeleteI'd guess that Hampson thought Greco was showing a spade control when he bid 4S.
:) :)
ReplyDeleteI contend that NS were plain lucky. A dubious bid by north go them to 6H and they managed to right side the contract.
But before all that, EW started their own bad-L-U-C-K with the 3S bid. Open the hand 1S and you will be defending 4H making 12 or 10 depending on the bidding
On a philosophical plane, I agree that East brought bad luck upon himself by his "incorrect" choice.
ReplyDeleteOn a logical plane, I cant really argue that as the 3S bid might have led to winning a game swing, if partner had a singleton.
Thats why, yet again, logic is overrated :)
So are you saying that opening 1S or opening 3S with that kind of hand - in a tough field - is a 50/50 proposition?
ReplyDelete