[kenrexford]

Scoring: MP

---

The bidding was a tad unusual for most folks.

North opened 1♣, because systemically 1♦ would usually promise a stiff or void. Actually, this is a pattern where 1♦ is allowed, but my partner was systemically allowed to elect 1♣.

I responded 1♠, promising at least five spades.

Opener raised, and then South bid the game. No opposition bidding.

The lead was a heart, won by East. East then switched to a trump (!). Trumps were pulled (split 2-2), ending in dummy (with the 8 to preserve transportation, in case that ever mattered).

So, knowing what you know so far, why am I posting this deal?

A bridge problem, and a perhaps frightening entry into my mind.

[inquiry]

Why are you posting this deal? To show off an incredibly silly systemic opening bid?

Not really sure why this is a matchpoint problem per se. I guess you are going to try for over tricks. No doubt you are thinking EAST would not have continued hearts without the club ace (least heart be pitched on ♣A should you have Axx of clubs. Likewise you maybe thinking that looking at those diamonds, East with two small or three small would have had the same fear but losers from your hand. So you are thinking he has ♣A and likely Qx, Qxx, or Qxxx of diamonds.

Since all that is at risk is matchpoints, you are probably thinking of finessing East for the diamond Queen, and to protect against Qxxx with him, you are thinking lead the jack and let it go if uncovered.

That is putting a lot of faith in your RHO.

[helene_t]

Another option is to play the pointed suits and see if there is a pseudo-endplay. Probably ridicolous since it rarely works even at the local club, but you never know. At MP I would play the ♦J and if RHO plays low without very suggesting tanking or other display, just cash ♦AK.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Feb 24 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

Another option is to play the pointed suits and see if there is a pseudo-endplay. Probably ridicolous since it rarely works even at the local club, but you never know. At MP I would play the ♦J and if RHO plays low without very suggesting tanking or other display, just cash ♦AK.

What is pseudo about this endplay? Cash club and exit hearts guarantees 10 tricks. Probably Ken tried that, played a heart to his queen which held.

[cherdano]

Sorry misread the play.

[Winstonm]

The problem is a determination of the quality and alertness of the opponents, especially RHO. On the surface, the trump return appears to suggest that RHO has a diamond control - but that is only valid if RHO is a decent player who is awake.

A great player may make this play as a double cross - but then, so might a weak player who has no clue.

The one thing this play has done is introduce a losing option that did not exist before the play.

At least I believe I know why you posted this - it is the kind of head-spinning play that always baffled me, as well.

[kenrexford]

Yep. LHO held Qx in diamonds.

Mind-boggling.

Down one. Diamond Ace, finesse.

I hate this type of situation. You know, when you get a spade return, that you have been given a near top if you play this thing right. However, if the diamonds do not work in the usual manner, then you have returned the near-top for a stupid average. If you, however, think about the situation a bit, you have the opportunity to guarantee a top or bottom. If you were playing an infinite number of deals, it seems that the finesse is right if RHO is 66% likely to be the kind of idiot who defends this way with the diamond Queen, rather than the type of idiot who defends this way without the diamond Queen. (The double cross seemed rather remote.) As I did not expect this situation to recur three times in the event, I supposed that my play was not so much a mathematical one from that perspective, but a risk-benefit analysis (meaning, in this event, with this partner, will the difference between a bottom and an average be as substantial as the difference between an average and a top). With this partner, in the State of the Match, I elected psychology, but I misread the idiot type.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

Yep. LHO held Qx in diamonds.

Mind-boggling.

Down one. Diamond Ace, finesse.

I hate this type of situation.

You might hate such situations less if you didn't respond to them by taking such swingy action.

If you think that the rest of the field is going to lose three tricks and then play for the drop, play for the drop yourself. If it works, you get a top; if it doesn't, you get an average. How bad can that be?

Or, you could look at your two hands and wonder why no one else bid. LHO apparently has CA and HK (I think - you don't actually say what RHO won the first trick with). If LHO had ten cards in the round suits, he might have bid. Moreover, if he had a singleton diamond he might have led it.

[glen]

To echo the above, if I read this correctly, the bidding went 1♣ (artificial)-1♠-2♠-4♠, and declarer played LHO not to have led a singleton ♦ - is that right?

[kenrexford]

officeglen, on Feb 24 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

To echo the above, if I read this correctly, the bidding went 1♣ (artificial)-1♠-2♠-4♠, and declarer played LHO not to have led a singleton ♦ - is that right?

Real good point. I became obsessed with a lunatic to my right. So, I stop to figure which holding makes the most sense for LHO. Presumably, this combination will answer the question.

Damn I feel stupid for never seeing that principle. The rule (for me to remember) is to immediately quit obsessing about what the player who has made a strange bid or play must have and instead focus on what his partner must have. Had I done this, it would have been obvious. RHO's weird play, and my assumptions about it, are easily negated by considering LHO's options.

I suppose insanity makes me like a deer in the headlights too often.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

officeglen, on Feb 24 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

To echo the above, if I read this correctly, the bidding went 1♣ (artificial)-1♠-2♠-4♠, and declarer played LHO not to have led a singleton ♦ - is that right?

Real good point. I became obsessed with a lunatic to my right. So, I stop to figure which holding makes the most sense for LHO. Presumably, this combination will answer the question.

Damn I feel stupid for never seeing that principle. The rule (for me to remember) is to immediately quit obsessing about what the player who has made a strange bid or play must have and instead focus on what his partner must have. Had I done this, it would have been obvious. RHO's weird play, and my assumptions about it, are easily negated by considering LHO's options.

I suppose insanity makes me like a deer in the headlights too often.

Ken,

Don't feel like the lone ranger on this one - I have often been blindsided by this same illogical type play. In another post, I called it a headspinning play, and that is what it does to me. It takes my eye off the ball and causes a loss of normal perspective.

The simple logic that officeglen pointed out gets somehow obscured - I'm not sure why.

[dake50]

Suffer outsmarted---never out-dumbed.

[655321]

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

officeglen, on Feb 24 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

To echo the above, if I read this correctly, the bidding went 1♣ (artificial)-1♠-2♠-4♠, and declarer played LHO not to have led a singleton ♦ - is that right?

Real good point. I became obsessed with a lunatic to my right. So, I stop to figure which holding makes the most sense for LHO. Presumably, this combination will answer the question.

Damn I feel stupid for never seeing that principle. The rule (for me to remember) is to immediately quit obsessing about what the player who has made a strange bid or play must have and instead focus on what his partner must have. Had I done this, it would have been obvious. RHO's weird play, and my assumptions about it, are easily negated by considering LHO's options.

I suppose insanity makes me like a deer in the headlights too often.

As gnasher and officeglen have pointed out, the key (as so often) is to think about the whole deal. Most of us (certainly me ) are guilty of this from time to time. When we come up with a possible holding for an opponent, it can never hurt to see if it makes sense in the context of the whole hand.