Help
Quote
==> Play the Ace is best (1b- )
(assuming never a 2nd round falsecard)
Quote
2. Opps will always play J from Jxx in the 2nd trick.
Now option 1b- is no longer possible and it is better to play the 8 (==> 1d- )
Now option 1b- is no longer possible and it is better to play the 8 (==> 1d- )
Yes.
Quote
3. Opps will play 50% of the time J from Jxx in the 2nd trick.
option 1d- is still better as probability of 1b- is only 50% of 3.4. (==> 1d- ).
option 1d- is still better as probability of 1b- is only 50% of 3.4. (==> 1d- ).
Yes.
Quote
Do you consider this a restricted choice?
Not really this part of the problem. It's still a kind of Bayesian inference, but restricted choice is specifically the case when an opponent has either choice of playing one of equals, or no choice since he only has one of those cards. Restricted choice here only really affects the probability you assign to JT doubleton, since the other times RHO holds both J & T, anything you do doesn't really matter.
Quote
A. The play against opps that don't falsecard feels very strange. First you take the deep finesse and then you play the Ace. I would then think it's better to play Ace the first trick and play small to the Q in the 2nd trick.
Ace first, you lose the ability to trap certain honor combinations onside, and lose extra trick to: KJTxx, KJTx, JTx. Play low hook first exposes these.
Quote
B. How is suitplay taking (or not) taking these falsecards and restricted choices into account? Seems like suitplay also prefers line 1d- (finesse twice deep). It also considers that with Jxx you can play as well twice small, as 1st small and then J?
Very good question. I do not know how suitplay does its magic; you will have to email the author of the program for that. But it is considering optimal play by the defense, and it is assuming defenders are falsecarding appropriately.
Note that there is no flag you can set in the program to say "my opps don't know how to falsecard", nor does that it account for the fact in real life defense is not double-dummy, so some falsecards it assumes are impossible/improbable because declarer could hold something else & the falsecard would be too dangerous. It is great program, cuts short the busywork of enumerating all the combinations & percentages, but still one needs to think about which layouts the line it recommended is catering to, what falsecards are assumed & necessary. Especially when it counters your intuition. So here you think "why not Q, take JT", then hopefully you know principle of restricted choice, and notice that stiff J + stiff T > JT. Then you say "why not A, take care of KT", then start thinking about different orders opps can play the cards. Then you can make adjustments for real-life conditions.
Quote
C. I wonder how WC players do this at the table. They will only get this right if they studied the combo in advance?
Yes, I think they have read/thought about combo previously. If you are fast enough to figure this all out at table I don't want to play against you
.