[campboy]

Counting the 10 diamonds which you have seen from players other than West may indeed be a tedious calculation, but if it is a "genuine 3-suiter [short in hearts]" with at most 3 diamonds then it is 5134 or 4135 exactly. Now I would think that a man who has at most three hearts is more likely to have no hearts than a man who has exactly one heart, but YMMV.

[axman]

dburn, on Jul 9 2010, 04:28 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 01:07 AM, said:

I agree with campboy (and possibly others).

The real question to ask is why it is more likely that trumps are 5-0 if you are told West has a made a 'take-out' bid, than if you are told West has shown a 'Michaels' hand.

Because, given that West doesn't have very many points, his "takeout bid" is likely to be a genuine three-suiter - that is, he will have at least twelve non-hearts. For a "Michaels" bid he needs only ten non-hearts. I suspect, without performing tedious calculations, that a man who can have at most one heart is more likely to have no hearts than a man who can have at most three hearts.

WHen establishing a connection to damage, much closer to the mark is whether the difference from the correct explanation is sufficient to exclude/ignore other possibilities.

However, to my thinking, a necessary condition for establishing such a difference is the prior establishment of exactly what a correct explanation is. My understanding is that in this case there is an assertion of damage in the play arising from E's expalantion to N and that E's explanation has been established. And in my mind, a correct explanation is sufficient defense to an accusation of a misexplanation to N and it has not yet been established that such infraction existed if for no other reason that a corrct explanation has not yet been established.