Posted 2009-February-07, 16:04
One of my favorite impossible plays went something like this.
In a trump contract, I was on dummy with KJ109xxx in clubs (a side suit), a void in clubs in hand, and only one more entry back to dumy.
I could just play small and hope to drop a stiff Ace. Or, I could play the King, hoping to find stiff Queen to my left and a cover by right, establishing the entire suit. Neither seemed all that likely. Whereas just ruffing out the Ace was twice as likely to win a trick, the King would yield two more tricks rather than one. So, a 0.00002 chance of one more trick, or a 0.00001 chance of two more tricks. Seemed even odds, roughly. Of course, RHO with A9xxx might wisely duck and give me a problem. So, the odds favored, IMO, the practical ruff-out of the Ace.
However, no psychology kicks in. It seemed that I might have an extra chance if I was tricky and selected precisely the Jack. Then, RHO might think I am trying to sneak the stiff Queen into my bag and hop Ace from Ax(x)(x)(x) anyway. So, I was inclined to lead precisely the Jack.
Still, there was one more layer left. "Weird begets weird." The theory is that bridge players do reciprocally weird things if you do weird things first. The "weird" play is neither the King nor the Jack, nor small. Weird is the 10. So, as the 10 seemed most likely to (1.) work if the Ace is stiff, (2.) induce RHO to hop the ACe for fear of the sneak-the-Queen move, and (3.) induce a "weird begets weird" play, I opted 10 at the table.
RHO, with AQx, thought for a second and then flew Ace.
"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.