| |
BGonline.org Forums
Hitting is bad
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Hitting is bad (higonefive)
Date: Monday, 31 January 2011, at 9:58 a.m.
I wasn't sure which position you were analyzing. If it was 64S-64X-32H-43H-42 (as Leobueno originally posted), then your choice of covering the 9pt with Bar/23 13/9 is the same as mine, though I expect anchoring (Bar/21 23/21) to be close, with only hitting clearly worse.
In regards to your observation that in that position, "We can use only half a move" to cover the 9pt, I think that is a fuzzy way of looking at it. What matters (whether it's enough to make the play best or not) is if there is another part of the move left over with which to do something useful. In 64S-64X-32H-43H-42, even entering with Bar/23 has to be measured as of supplemental value (as part of the Bar/23 13/9 and Bar/23 9/5* plays), compared to Bar/21 23/21, where the value of that low-anchoring deuce is replaced rather than added.
In my first example position (41S-54S-42), hitting with 9/5* comes with a very useful 2 (i.e., 13/11), whereas covering the 9pt comes with a 2 that is only a little bit useful, and making the 4pt comes with no left-over 2. Even with that substantial bonus of a great 2, hitting still comes out worst of the three and the 4pt (which has no extra 2 at all) comes out best.
In my second example position (62S-54S-52), none of the three plays of anchoring, hitting, and making the 9pt come with a left-over 2 -- it doesn't matter if you call it "half the roll" or the whole roll to make whatever point. The only point-making plays that come with a left-over portion (an only somewhat useful 4 in this case) involve covering the 11pt.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.