BGonline.org Forums

52S-52K-31-54@-42

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Monday, 5 September 2011, at 6:06 p.m.

In Response To: 52S-52K-31-54@-42 (Timothy Chow)

54S-32H-65K-51-63H-54@-21U-65R-42

Nack says that as a rule, either five point beats either four point. Is this an exception?

Could be, though it should be a small overturn if at all. White's having anchored on her 20pt argues against Blue's P, but her stripped 8pt argues even more in favor of P. So, could be...

For third roll positions of the type 52S-xxx-42 (with no hits interfering), @ beats P by roughly these (descending) margins:

Position...........Margin
52S-42P-42 ...087
52S-52D-42 ...073
52S-43S-42 ...066
52S-21S-42 ...066
52S-61P-42 ...061
52S-54S-42 ...056
52S-62S-42 ...049
52S-51S-42 ...035
52S-52S-42 ...035
52S-63S-42 ...031
52S-65R-42 ...028
52S-41T-42 ...025
52S-63R-42 ...014
52S-41U-42 ...009
52S-64P-42 .–.017

These are based on old Snowie truncated rollouts, which are close enough for government work. P is better only in the last position (and 64P is the third best reply).

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• 52S-52K-31-54@-42
  Dmitriy Obukhov -- Sunday, 4 September 2011, at 5:13 a.m.
  • 52S-52K-31-54@-42
    Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 4 September 2011, at 5:32 a.m.
  • 52S-52K-31-54@-42
    Stick -- Sunday, 4 September 2011, at 3:27 p.m.
    • 52S-52K-31-54@-42
      Dmitriy Obukhov -- Sunday, 4 September 2011, at 8:12 p.m.
      • 54S-32H-65K-51-63H-54@-21V-65R-42
        Nack Ballard -- Monday, 5 September 2011, at 5:35 p.m.
  • 52S-52K-31-54@-42
    Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 4 September 2011, at 6:49 p.m.
    • 52S-52K-31-54@-42
      Nack Ballard -- Monday, 5 September 2011, at 6:06 p.m.
      • 52S-xxx-42 — Clarification Needed
        Taper_Mike -- Friday, 30 May 2014, at 11:57 a.m.
        • 52S-xxx-42 — Clarification Needed
          Nack Ballard -- Friday, 30 May 2014, at 8:57 p.m.
  • 52S-52K-31-54@-42
    Dmitriy Obukhov -- Friday, 30 May 2014, at 4:04 p.m.