[han]

I'd play two clubs ending in dummy. If nobody shows out and the jack of clubs hasn't appeared yet I guess diamonds (most likely playing LHO for the queen). Then the diamond count will tell me whether I should finesse, squeeze LHO or drop the 3-3 split.

I don't read much into the diamond pitch. I would guess the diamond queen with west because (a) west didn't lead a diamond and (b) LHO has 1 fewer card in the majors.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure what to make of Eisenberg's unsubtle efforts to confirm the spade layout, or of East's helpful rectification of the count. The diamond discard definitely means nothing - he probably couldn't afford a club anyway.

If he thinks I'm a bit ploppy, he might be trying to make sure that I play with the odds. Or he might think I'm too clever for that, and be giving me information that he thinks I would have worked out for myself anyway, so that I'll be suspicious and play against the odds. Or, ...

One way to deal with this sort of situation is to consider only the information that I would have had if left to my own devices. West didn't lead a diamond, which he might have done from xxx or xxxx. That's a good reason to play West for ♦Q, so I'd do that, taking care to win the third round of diamonds in dummy. Then I bring in the clubs in the manner described by Han.

[Echognome]

Already gave my earlier line to Justin. I'm still not sure what's right in the endgame. Will await the actual hand and the rest of the analysis.

Oh, I guess I can at least say I started with three top clubs.

[ceeb]

Finesse the ♦ now.

From Billy's perspective you need AQJ of one minor or both minor Q's to come to 20hcp. If the former the play will not be complicated: you will run ♥'s & your minor. If the latter, then above all he doesn't want to help you run your AQxx -- maybe AQ10x -- suit. Therefore he would not discard a xxx or xxxx unless the other suit discard is worse. Hence the ♦ pitch suggests
A. ♦Qxxx, ♣any three
B. ♦xxxx, ♣any three
C. ♦Qxx, ♣Jxxx
D. ♦xxx, ♣Jxxx
E. ♦any five or six

These combinations are nominally in proportion 400:300:150:200:133.

If that's right, then

♣A, K, Q wins in cases A+E -- 533 times.
♣A, 9 wins A/2+C/2+E/? -- much less
♦ A,J wins A+C+E- -- 650 times.

Much as Billy might be inclined to make a tricky double-cross discard from ♦xxx, maybe, like the Stones say, he "just don't get that much chance." I'm sure your table feel is better than my reasoning, but for myself I like finding an approach that doesn't involve trying to out-psyche Billy Eisenberg.

Edit: Hans' line obviously better -- no harm in ♣A, K before the ♦ play.

[benlessard]

Leading spades from Jxxx is a bit unattractive. I guess LHO is stuck with the Q of D and the J of clubs. You can afford to cash 2 clubs before taking the D finesse because even if LHO is 4234 you can squeeze him on the 3rd H.

[whereagles]

I'll just cash clubs, see what happens and take it from there. If nothing happens I'll look if there's a mirror somewhere in the room... lol.

[Apollo81]

I think LHO was Jxxxx x Qxx(x) Jxx(x) because:

I think Jxxxx without the 10 or 9 is a weird lead against 6NT, so that makes it likely he has other undesirable leads rather than holdings like xxx or especially xxxx.

I think the ♣J is more likely than the ♦Q to be in LHO's hand because he would never pitch a club from Jxxx (and probably not from Jxx) no matter what he had in diamonds.

Anyway the thing is if finesse ♣9 and am right (regardless of whether LHO had 3 or 4), I still have to guess diamonds in the end. Thus I will just play LHO for the ♦Q right now and if that works I should make.

[pclayton]

I didn't get this right the first time this was given to me, but the spade lead is a big clue on the location of the ♦Q I think.

You aren't home yet, by the way.

[Apollo81]

deleted

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Apr 29 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

I didn't get this right the first time this was given to me, but the spade lead is a big clue on the location of the ♦Q I think.

You aren't home yet, by the way.

If we decide from the lead that the DQ is onside we are home, surely?

We next cash 3 rounds of diamonds. This will give us a complete count on the hand. If LHO was 5143 the clubs run; if he was 5134 he is squeezed on the third diamond; if he was 5152 we play A, K and club finesse.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 29 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 29 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

I didn't get this right the first time this was given to me, but the spade lead is a big clue on the location of the ♦Q I think.

You aren't home yet, by the way.

If we decide from the lead that the DQ is onside we are home, surely?

We next cash 3 rounds of diamonds. This will give us a complete count on the hand. If LHO was 5143 the clubs run; if he was 5134 he is squeezed on the third diamond; if he was 5152 we play A, K and club finesse.

Thats what I was getting at.

[gnasher]

I think that the people who played clubs from the top were wrong twice over. If I were forced to play three round of clubs before guessing diamonds, I'd finesse against East rather than playing for 3-3, even though 3-3 is more likely than 2=4.

From the point that you have cashed two top clubs and played a third one, without seeing the jack:

- If you play for a 3-3 break (which is moderately odds-on) and then succeed, presumably you will then play West for ♦Q, because he will be known to have four diamonds to East's three. The probability of success will therefore be
4/7 x (a bit more than 50%).

- If you finesse against East (which is moderately odds-against) and then then succeed, you will be able to claim on a squeeze against West, who will be known to be 5=1=5=2. The probability of success will therefore be
1 x (a bit less than 50%)

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Apr 29 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

I think that the people who played clubs from the top were wrong twice over. If I were forced to play three round of clubs before guessing diamonds, I'd finesse against East rather than playing for 3-3, even though 3-3 is more likely than 2=4.

From the point that you have cashed two top clubs and played a third one, without seeing the jack:

- If you play for a 3-3 break (which is moderately odds-on) and then succeed, presumably you will then play West for ♦Q, because he will be known to have four diamonds to East's three. The probability of success will therefore be
4/7 x (a bit more than 50%).

- If you finesse against East (which is moderately odds-against) and then then succeed, you will be able to claim on a squeeze against West, who will be known to be 5=1=5=2. The probability of success will therefore be
1 x (a bit less than 50%)

This completely ignores the possibility of Jx of clubs!!

I figured that clubs gives us a better chance of picking up the suit than diamonds and I will save my guesswork for the end. Do I need to prove that picking up clubs is easier than diamonds? Maybe you're morally certain where the diamond Q is, then fine? Can't prove you wrong there.

But it's ultimately a comparison of:

Odds of guessing clubs * odds of guessing diamonds given we've guessed clubs

vs.

Odds of guessing diamonds * odds of guessing clubs given we've guessed diamonds

I grant you that the latter conditional probability is much higher than the former. However, it's also the case that the odds of guessing clubs is greater than the odds of guessing diamonds.

So just before I put my foot entirely in my mouth, did you mean to first play two rounds of clubs and then guess diamonds? Or were you completely ignoring the fact that ♣Jx might fall?

[gnasher]

Echognome, on Apr 29 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

So just before I put my foot entirely in my mouth, did you mean to first play two rounds of clubs and then guess diamonds?  Or were you completely ignoring the fact that ♣Jx might fall?

Not only did I mean to do that, I also said I was going to do it:

gnasher said:

If I were forced to play three round of clubs

[..]

from the point that you have cashed two top clubs and played a third one, without seeing the jack

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Apr 29 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

Echognome, on Apr 29 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

So just before I put my foot entirely in my mouth, did you mean to first play two rounds of clubs and then guess diamonds?  Or were you completely ignoring the fact that ♣Jx might fall?

Not only did I mean to do that, I also said I was going to do it:

gnasher said:

If I were forced to play three round of clubs

[..]

from the point that you have cashed two top clubs and played a third one, without seeing the jack

Well fair enough then!

So there!

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

Matt, it would be very hard to overcome the ONE HUNDRED percent chance of getting clubs right. Your line automatically loses to Jxxx with either player which is a big percentage of the time. And really you gain NOTHING with your line! The only relevant info you gain is when clubs are 3-3 (otherwise you just went down). With that information you don't really know much more than you did earlier. If you're going to play LHO for the queen now because he has 4 diamonds to RHO's 3 then you've done the exact same thing that the other line did.

Also, I am ignoring Jx of clubs and stiff clubs because both lines are the same in that case since you can cash 2 clubs first in either line.

The whole "delay the diamond guess" is really a mirage.

Yes yes. I missed the whole cashing two top clubs thing. I guess I didn't make that clear in my reply to Andy.