Help
Well it is pretty obvioius, but there is a story here...
Page 1 of 1
lead strikes gold... Next?
#1
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2008-April-30, 21:47
Well it is pretty obvioius, but there is a story here...
--Ben--
#2 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-April-30, 21:56
I am going to just confess that I don't really see it heh. I would play a club though, seems like declarer just has a claim.
#3
- Tubthumper
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,835
- Joined: 2007-July-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR, USA
- Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.
Posted 2008-May-01, 00:31
let me guess: you play a club, partner falsecards the T of spades from T94 when declarer plays low, and declarer reads you for all four remaining spades, so finesses the next round of spades when you play the 2.
Chris Gibson
#4 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-May-01, 00:53
CSGibson, on May 1 2008, 01:31 AM, said:
let me guess: you play a club, partner falsecards the T of spades from T94 when declarer plays low, and declarer reads you for all four remaining spades, so finesses the next round of spades when you play the 2.
Playing you for 3 spades when you've shown up with 6 clubs already, AND for those 3 spades to include 2 of the honors seems totally random. But I guess it's the best shot.
#5
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-May-01, 05:34
What's the relevance of the 9?
If Declarer has A9, the 10 forces the Ace. With four spades still out there, finessing the 9 seems reasonable.
Actually, if partner has 109x, then Declarer has Ax. If he has Ax, he cannot double-hook anyway. SUre, he might play you for sloppily not splitting, but...
If partner has 109 tight, then declarer could double hook.
The one holding, though, that you do not want is 109x.
If Declarer has A9, the 10 forces the Ace. With four spades still out there, finessing the 9 seems reasonable.
Actually, if partner has 109x, then Declarer has Ax. If he has Ax, he cannot double-hook anyway. SUre, he might play you for sloppily not splitting, but...
If partner has 109 tight, then declarer could double hook.
The one holding, though, that you do not want is 109x.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#6
- Tubthumper
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,835
- Joined: 2007-July-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR, USA
- Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.
Posted 2008-May-01, 08:24
kenrexford, on May 1 2008, 03:34 AM, said:
What's the relevance of the 9?
If Declarer has A9, the 10 forces the Ace. With four spades still out there, finessing the 9 seems reasonable.
If Declarer has A9, the 10 forces the Ace. With four spades still out there, finessing the 9 seems reasonable.
yeah, but then you don't set the contract when declarer finesses, having the 9, so it's a non-issue when thinking about the hand.
Just for the record, I was just trying to think how any play from my hand makes this a non-claimer, and that's the only one I came up with as even a possibility for declarer to screw up.
Chris Gibson
#7
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-May-01, 17:41
CSGibson, on May 1 2008, 09:24 AM, said:
kenrexford, on May 1 2008, 03:34 AM, said:
What's the relevance of the 9?
If Declarer has A9, the 10 forces the Ace. With four spades still out there, finessing the 9 seems reasonable.
If Declarer has A9, the 10 forces the Ace. With four spades still out there, finessing the 9 seems reasonable.
yeah, but then you don't set the contract when declarer finesses, having the 9, so it's a non-issue when thinking about the hand.
Just for the record, I was just trying to think how any play from my hand makes this a non-claimer, and that's the only one I came up with as even a possibility for declarer to screw up.
Duh! LOL
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#8
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 2006-September-18
Posted 2008-May-02, 00:58
gee tks ken ; wasting nearly 2 minutes of my life on this
#9
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2008-May-02, 02:33
Now for the rest of the story.....
I may have slightly changed the real hand... here you "REALLY" held.... one of the following hands.
♠ J2 ♥ 853 ♦ 92 ♣ AKJ764
♠ JT2 ♥ 83 ♦ 92 ♣ AKJ764
♠ 2 ♥ 853 ♦ 962 ♣ AKJ764
On the "actual hand" which ever one it was, the defense went four rounds of clubs, as shown, dummy ruffing with the EIGHT, partner the NNE and declarer over-ruffing with the ACE.
Declarer, with no losers outside of trumps, held Axx of spades. At the table, the decarer played low spade and when the TWO was played, let's he 'guessed wrong' (that is he either hooked on the first or last hand shown above, or went up with the king and subsequently down with the middle hand shown.
As noted above, the only defense with J2 is 4th round of clubs. With JT2, J92, or T9s, same only defense. And in fact with singleton 2, same only defense. I doubt dummy was right (other than with benefit of highnsight). The dummy claimed the ruff and sluff would only be presented with one of these specific holds, I think the dummy was wildlly wrong.
I may have slightly changed the real hand... here you "REALLY" held.... one of the following hands.
♠ J2 ♥ 853 ♦ 92 ♣ AKJ764
♠ JT2 ♥ 83 ♦ 92 ♣ AKJ764
♠ 2 ♥ 853 ♦ 962 ♣ AKJ764
On the "actual hand" which ever one it was, the defense went four rounds of clubs, as shown, dummy ruffing with the EIGHT, partner the NNE and declarer over-ruffing with the ACE.
Declarer, with no losers outside of trumps, held Axx of spades. At the table, the decarer played low spade and when the TWO was played, let's he 'guessed wrong' (that is he either hooked on the first or last hand shown above, or went up with the king and subsequently down with the middle hand shown.
As noted above, the only defense with J2 is 4th round of clubs. With JT2, J92, or T9s, same only defense. And in fact with singleton 2, same only defense. I doubt dummy was right (other than with benefit of highnsight). The dummy claimed the ruff and sluff would only be presented with one of these specific holds, I think the dummy was wildlly wrong.
--Ben--
#10 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-May-02, 03:26
You could argue that: With JT2 you would always like to play the final club. With stiff 2 you'd never like to play the final club (as partner may be sitting there with J9xx of spades). So if you are always playing the final club with J2 of spades, then they should hook partner out of his J9xx if you don't play a spade. You could then argue that with J2 of spades you should not play the final club and then declarer will hook into your jack of spades. But now that means if you do play the 4th round of clubs you have JT2 of spades. This means declarer should hook you out of it when you do play the 4th round of clubs. This means... we've created an endless loop.
Declarer may decide to assume you do not do any of those things 100 % of the time with J2 of trumps (whether he has Axx or Ax or AT) and to just cater to picking up 3-2 trumps.
I would argue if he had AT of trumps hooking your partner out of the trump jack would not be THAT crazy given the known 6-1 clubs and the fact that you will never play another club with a stiff trump but may have with Jx(x) of trumps.
I would argue that trying to hook a guy out of JTx of trumps when you have Ax(x) of trumps and LHO has shown up with 6 clubs already is insane.
Declarer may decide to assume you do not do any of those things 100 % of the time with J2 of trumps (whether he has Axx or Ax or AT) and to just cater to picking up 3-2 trumps.
I would argue if he had AT of trumps hooking your partner out of the trump jack would not be THAT crazy given the known 6-1 clubs and the fact that you will never play another club with a stiff trump but may have with Jx(x) of trumps.
I would argue that trying to hook a guy out of JTx of trumps when you have Ax(x) of trumps and LHO has shown up with 6 clubs already is insane.
#11
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 612
- Joined: 2007-December-31
- Location:Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Posted 2008-May-02, 10:45
Jlall, on May 2 2008, 04:26 AM, said:
...
This means... we've created an endless loop.
This means... we've created an endless loop.
There has to be at least one mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium.
My random defense would probably purely coincidentally resemble the right strategy.
"It is not enough to be a good player. You must also play well." -- Tarrasch
Page 1 of 1
South North
1NT 4♥
4♠ Pass
You start with CLUB ACE and partner plays the Queen.
You continue club king, and partner throws a low heart
You continue club Jack, and partner throws a low diamond
Next?