[kenrexford]

Kx on dummy opposite Jx in hand. It seems that small to the King should win a fair percentage of the time (against sane defense) even though Declarer's RHO has the Ace.

Qx on dummy, Jx in hand, also should win about the same percentage of the time, on small to the Queen, even with the Ace to the right.

The odds of this play having a chance seems to be one in every seven times (14.3% or so), if you ignore or are able to create an illusion as to the rest of Declarer's expected hand and the tactical needs of the defense.

I never see this play done, though. Anyone ever try this, or ever see this done?

[kenrexford]

I just thought of another one. Similar.

AJ9x in dummy, K108x in hand. It seems that the correct play is small to the Ace, finesse the queen back, all things being equal, that that this line should result in greater success than any other line.

[Free]

very interesting one: after an elimination you are in dummy with Kxx opposite Txx, you can easily cross. Interestingly enough, a small one was played to the T and it held! RHO had AQJx

[ochinko]

kenrexford, on Jun 9 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

I just thought of another one. Similar.

AJ9x in dummy, K108x in hand. It seems that the correct play is small to the Ace, finesse the queen back, all things being equal, that that this line should result in greater success than any other line.

This one I start with the Jack from dummy, putting the King no matter what RHO plays. If the Queen hasn't appeared I now make the finesse. Opps should be given more chances to err.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 9 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

I just thought of another one. Similar.

AJ9x in dummy, K108x in hand. It seems that the correct play is small to the Ace, finesse the queen back, all things being equal, that that this line should result in greater success than any other line.

If I can, I use the theory of Vacant Spaces or some other logic to determine in which direction to take the finesse.

If I can't use logic, I finesse in whatever direction will p*ss off the opponent I dislike most by the most...

[kenrexford]

If the opponents do not err, in the classic sense, but make a play that might be right in their view, and in yours, all of these plays will work a percentage of the time. Some of the lines I see so far cater to less subtle mistakes, it seems.

The Kxx-10xx is a nice position, but I'm not sure your line is mathematically accurate and missing the key aspect of these three situations (there are more); the person behind the Kxx is endplayed anyway if he rises, it seems, and must hope that his partner has the 10. If there is no cross-ruff, you may have caught on well.

I'll leave the carrot dangling a bit more, because I suspected and have had confirmed that the positions were not quite obvious.

[nige1]

kenrexford, on Jun 9 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

I just thought of another one.  Similar.

AJ9x in dummy, K108x in hand. 

It seems that the correct play is small to the Ace, finesse the queen back, all things being equal, that that this line should result in greater success than any other line.

Not sure about that. My partner always cashes the ace and king. He swears that this is the correct safety play against doubleton queen. I admit that so far his claim holds up -- I've never known him to lose to a doubleton queen with this holding.

[kenrexford]

Actually, I'll be away for a tourney all weekend, so I suppose I'll toss 'er in here to avoid driving people nuts if they don't figure this out.

Spoiler

The idea, here, is in taking advantage of correct plays for different layouts that are consistent with dummy's known cards, especially if you can create the illusion through some other plays in some other suits that you have the alternative, but false, holding.

Spoiler

Classic first was Kx in dummy opposite Jx in hand. If, by way of a fake finesse, for example, you create the illusion that you must have two more points somewhere, RHO may play you for Q10x in hand, if he lacks the Queen and Jack himself. Technically, sticking in the 10 by LHO might make sense, but probably not. So, his line might be to duck the King if he wants to ensure that you finesse the 10 back -- to misdirect you as to the location of the Ace and to keep you from playing for the drop or something similar.

Spoiler

Similarly, Qx on dummy may be enough to have RHO duck, for the same reason. If LHO has K10x, he would also duck, in case you have the expected Jxx. Granted, RHO also needs to consider you having Jxx, unless you misdirect him as to where your points must be.

Spoiler

AJ9x in dummy, K108x in hand. There is an occasional reason for LHO to stick in the Queen if you lead small toward dummy. If dummy lacks entries (perhaps you prematurely used one, pretending that this was necessary), and if you have misdirected LHO as to the count (making it less likely that you have the King) and as to the distribution (making it likely that your suit is doubleton instead of four long), LHO, with Qx, will stick in the Queen to avoid two losers. If he ducks, you finesse the nine, losing to his partner's King, and then lead the 10-Q-A, scoring the Jack later. If he sticks in the Queen, you can win this, but you lose trasportation. If you duck, he knows that you either win only one more or are lured into a finesse at round two, winning no tricks from the suit. So, hopping Queen in this situation is sometimes right, whereas it seems to never be right the other way.

Spoiler

The point of these positions is to note positions where you would play weird-looking honors, or make weird-looking ducks, with the dummy as it is, remember what declarer holding you would expect to justify that play, and then create the uillusion, somehow, that you, as declarer, have that necessary holding (when that is your only chance as Declarer).

Spoiler

The easy one is AJxx opposite Q10 in a suit contract, playing Queen to the Ace and small back, "planning to ruff," but winning the 10 when RHO (who you suspect to have the King) "obviously" ducks. This is a simple and well-known ruse. There seem to be much more elaborate ones out there.

[kenrexford]

These things come up in defense also, although hey seem more obvious there.

A classic is leading Q from AQx at the Kxx in dummy, planning to win the first three tricks in the suit. I had the fortune of being able to lead Q from AQJ2 at K1083 in dummy and winning the first three tricks in that suit, on one occasion. My wife actually elected to lead fourth best from AKJ6 in a side suit, against a trump contract, catching Q1097 in dummy; Declarer, a pro, lost the first three tricks in the suit when his RHO gave correct standard count.