[Trumpace]

ArtK78, on Jul 25 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

So are you saying that you are gearing your game towards competing against players who can barely distinguish one card from another?

This does not belong in a serious discussion forum.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Against a beginner/int LHO, finesse is right, if LHO was adv/expert go for the drop.

How is that gearing your game towards players who don't know how to play?

This combination has an interesting theoretical aspect to it which might have applications to other combinations against experts. Just because this hand came up against a beginner does not mean it is not worth discussing it.

You are free to ignore the thread if you like...

(btw, ever heard of Barry Crane?)

[kenrexford]

So, where's the analysis, now, of the reality that splitting the honors may hurt more than it helps, such as in the elopement scenario? LOL

[ArtK78]

Even a rank beginner will realize that he has to split his honors on the second round.

With all due respect, the idea that it is "right" to play for the finesse on the second round against poor opposition is patently absurd. And the reference to Barry Crane is insulting to his memory, as if he was only good against poor opposition. Barry Crane was the best matchpoint player ever, against all competition.

As far as your elopement argument goes, Ken, I don't believe that is the right term. I believe it is more in the winkle family. As a defender, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. I certainly would not fail to split for fear that I could be thrown in at trick 12 with only two clubs left.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Jul 26 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

Even a rank beginner will realize that he has to split his honors on the second round.

With all due respect, the idea that it is "right" to play for the finesse on the second round against poor opposition is patently absurd. And the reference to Barry Crane is insulting to his memory, as if he was only good against poor opposition. Barry Crane was the best matchpoint player ever, against all competition.

As far as your elopement argument goes, Ken, I don't believe that is the right term. I believe it is more in the winkle family. As a defender, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. I certainly would not fail to split for fear that I could be thrown in at trick 12 with only two clubs left.

The initial question only with great subtlety suggested that the context may have been a notrump contract. However, that was not stated. If clubs are trumps, then splitting may actually be the incorrect play.

Now, "elopement" is the correct term. If Declarer can ruff twice in dummy (after finding out about the 4-1 stack, after the split of the honors by anyone other than your "rank beginner"), then he is obviously able to "repeat the finesse" by way of an elopement.

You did spot the notrump issue, however. The context of the problem was that Declarer needs all of the clubs, so that this is not as relevant. However, were Declarer to need four tricks from clubs without losing a club, then, as you point out, he may be able to use the position over LHO as a menace for a squeeze. If LHO can see this development and can expect Declarer to also see this development, then splitting is not right.

So, although you keep calling the split 100%, that is incorrect. Context is required. The other person who will not split 100% is the expert defender in the contextually correct (or contextually probably correct) situation of an elopment or a throw-in/squeeze.

[ralph23]

ArtK78, on Jul 26 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

Even a rank beginner will realize that he has to split his honors on the second round.

Well, I don't know how many rank beginners you play against, but I play some on BBO with intermeds sometimes, and even beginners (rarely though), and they make this kind of play (low, not split) all the time.

I wouldn't venture a percentage on how often they would fail to split, but certainly non-zero.

[Trumpace]

ArtK78, on Jul 26 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

With all due respect, the idea that it is "right" to play for the finesse on the second round against poor opposition is patently absurd. And the reference to Barry Crane is insulting to his memory, as if he was only good against poor opposition. Barry Crane was the best matchpoint player ever, against all competition.

You have missed the point entirely.

The point is, depending on LHO, if you judge that LHO would split honors only very rarely, it is better to finesse.

How did you come to the conclusion that the suggestion is to finesse all the time?

In your case, based upon your evaluation, even beginners split honors, so go ahead and play for the drop.

If I was playing against a rank beginner, I would finesse.

You seem to be making the same mistake in thinking the implication was to suggest that Barry Crane was good only against poor opposition. I never suggested that.

I am sorry, but I will not discuss this topic any further with you.

[ArtK78]

And I never suggested that it was right to finesse all of the time. My comment was in response to the analysis in prior posts that, given certain assumptions, the finesse was the right play.

Ken, your argument is interesting. If the contract is notrump, and declarer is a competent player, there is something to be said for not splitting the club honors to avoid being sqeeze-endplayed and forced to lead away from the club holding at trick 12. Obviously, one would need to see one's hand to be able to make the judgment that not splitting may be necessary.

If it is a trump contract, a similar judgment would have to be made in a different context - the elopement that you referred to in your posts.

A final word - I would like to see if any top-ranked player who would ever consider this position and the foregoing analysis and finesse on the second round of clubs. And if RHO showed out (or, worse, followed with a small club from Jx), I would like to be around for the post mortem.

[cherdano]

I don't care much whether intermediates would go wrong with T9xx 85% of the time (I don't think so), but I think in a trump contract against an expert, the question is interesting. Assuming we have a trump coup available, LHO should play low from T9xx to give us a losing alternative, but would he find that 85% of the time or more?
Impossible to say without seeing the whole hand, of course.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jul 29 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

I don't care much whether intermediates would go wrong with T9xx 85% of the time (I don't think so), but I think in a trump contract against an expert, the question is interesting. Assuming we have a trump coup available, LHO should play low from T9xx to give us a losing alternative, but would he find that 85% of the time or more?
Impossible to say without seeing the whole hand, of course.

You and I would, of course. LOL

[Trumpace]

cherdano, on Jul 29 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

I don't care much whether intermediates would go wrong with T9xx 85% of the time (I don't think so), but I think in a trump contract against an expert, the question is interesting. Assuming we have a trump coup available, LHO should play low from T9xx to give us a losing alternative, but would he find that 85% of the time or more?
Impossible to say without seeing the whole hand, of course.

Yes, the trump coup aspect of this hand is _much_ more interesting, but the calculations made would be similar... The point of the combination was: we need to consider LHO's splitting probability and factor that into our calculations. Using "intermediate" skill for LHO to try to make that point wasn't such a good idea. I agree.

Anyway, assume that in case of a honor split by LHO, there is a 100% chance of a trump coup.

By a sort of a "symmetry" argument: I would guess that the answer would come out to be exactly 15% i.e. LHO should split exactly 15% of the time, this causes declarer's calculations to end up at zero (calculations which Stephen Tu did for us), giving declarer no real information on whether to play for the drop of finesse.

If the the split % of LHO is either > or < 15% then declarers calculations would give him a sure line.

[pclayton]

Terminology Police have been called....

This could lead to a winkle in the endgame if there is a blocked position in another suit.

This could lead to a trump coup if the long club hand could be shortened enough.

This has nothing to do with an elopement (or en passant).

I will agree that these aspects need to be considered, and its not 'automatic' at all to split the 10-9.

[keylime]

If I knew opener's hand in its entirety, you can successfully argue for the drop using an extension of prism signals - since we hold an even number of clubs and you know major lengths, you should be able to determine the layout by inference.

[Free]

Just play the damn Ace and Queen, you can't lose from it... If LHO has T9xx you were lost from the beginning although you get the trick back at some point. However, at any other table you should expect LHO to play T or 9 and all these declarers will score the same amount of tricks as we do. If LHO has 2-3♣s there's no need to take any risks by finessing.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jul 30 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

This could lead to a trump coup if the long club hand could be shortened enough.

This has nothing to do with an elopement (or en passant).

Isn't a "trump coup" one form of the more general "elopement?"

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jul 30 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 30 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

This could lead to a trump coup if the long club hand could be shortened enough.

This has nothing to do with an elopement (or en passant).

Isn't a "trump coup" one form of the more general "elopement?"

I suppose, but specifically a trump coup is a tenaced position when declarer leads a plain suit from one hand and can finesse his opponent in trump in the process.

An elopment (to me anyway) is when declarer plays a loser and the opponent can either ruff with a master trump and declarer can discard a loser, or the defender discards and declarer's losing trump is scored.

[ArtK78]

While this train has been running on for some time, it seems to have left the track, at least as far as the original problem is concerned.

There is no reference in the original problem of this being a trump contract and this suit being the trump suit. In fact, by the way the original problem was phrased, I got the strong impression that this was a notrump contract. So, barring an unlikely endplay, the problem is whether to finesse on the second round of the suit or play for the drop - PERIOD.

[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Jul 30 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

While this train has been running on for some time, it seems to have left the track, at least as far as the original problem is concerned.

There is no reference in the original problem of this being a trump contract and this suit being the trump suit. In fact, by the way the original problem was phrased, I got the strong impression that this was a notrump contract. So, barring an unlikely endplay, the problem is whether to finesse on the second round of the suit or play for the drop - PERIOD.

A winkle (or even a basic endplay) is still possible in a NT contract. To split or not to split isn't clear.

Knowing the original hand would settle this discussion.

[Trumpace]

pclayton, on Jul 30 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 30 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

While this train has been running on for some time, it seems to have left the track, at least as far as the original problem is concerned.

There is no reference in the original problem of this being a trump contract and this suit being the trump suit.  In fact, by the way the original problem was phrased, I got the strong impression that this was a notrump contract.  So, barring an unlikely endplay, the problem is whether to finesse on the second round of the suit or play for the drop - PERIOD.

A winkle (or even a basic endplay) is still possible in a NT contract. To split or not to split isn't clear.

Knowing the original hand would settle this discussion.

Does the original hand really matter?

In the original hand it seemed like RHO was 7-4 in majors, in which case finesse stands out (I think). In the problem statement I changed it 5-4 to make the decision close...

The point is, the combination is nice in that you not only need to consider RHO's cards but also LHO's cards from a Bayes theorem point of view (or restricted choice if you want to call it that).

About NT vs suit: pick whichever, as the problem statement does not really match the hand which made me ask this question here.

I don't care what the original question sounded like, I am glad that there has been some constructive discussion here.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Jul 30 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

While this train has been running on for some time, it seems to have left the track, at least as far as the original problem is concerned.

There is no reference in the original problem of this being a trump contract and this suit being the trump suit. In fact, by the way the original problem was phrased, I got the strong impression that this was a notrump contract. So, barring an unlikely endplay, the problem is whether to finesse on the second round of the suit or play for the drop - PERIOD.

Well, if you truly "need to bring in the whole club suit," meaning that you have no option other than taking six full club tricks, and if the contract is notrump, then playing for the drop is 100% against an intelligent defender and hooking is only plausibly right against someone who could be careless.

But, that's a stupid question.

That question reminds me of the Balls Coup. A very nice position, I might add. You, as West, hold 985432. Dummy, North, holds AKQJ107. Declarer leads the 6 toward dummy. Notrump contract. What do you play?

The technically correct play is the 8, of course (or the 9, perhaps with suit-preference implications). But, I contend that if you actually play the 8 or 9, you prove that you have no balls. Hence, this coup of leading toward AKQJ107 is a way of separating out people who need to be mocked, for their own good. A Balls Coup, if you will, related the the squeeze to gain the count. You are just counting something other than cards.

Sure, you might hook the 7, but that is quite rude. It is simply poor form to make a play that takes advantage of someone for having the minimal balls required to duck in this situation. It is also quite rude to look at a small card played by West, ponder it, and rise with the Ace with great assurance that this is the correct play. This implies that you are confident that the suit splits because you know that West lacks the balls necessary to duck. Quite poor form.

[Free]

If you really really really want to make sure, knowing that RHO has 5-4M, play 3 rounds of ♦ first