Help
I've been having a mental block over the following situation, only just realised why, thought it might be interesting to other beginners/intermediates. Apologies if it's been posted recently, I've had a look through the archives and not found it.
It's pretty clear how to play the following combination for 3 tricks:
xx
KQT9
But what changes, if anything, if you move the 9 to dummy, i.e.
9x
KQTx
Page 1 of 1
easy(ish) suit combination
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 749
- Joined: 2005-July-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Melbourne, Australia
Posted 2009-April-25, 14:07
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,033
- Joined: 2008-December-05
Posted 2009-April-25, 16:13
In theory you should lead low to the ten, catering to stiff J onside.
In practice run the 9 is much much better, you lose to stiff jack, break even on AJ(x), but gain on all the times they don't cover. It is unlikely a good player would miss a cover from Jxx or Jx, but they often will from Jxxx or longer and AJxx or longer.
In practice run the 9 is much much better, you lose to stiff jack, break even on AJ(x), but gain on all the times they don't cover. It is unlikely a good player would miss a cover from Jxx or Jx, but they often will from Jxxx or longer and AJxx or longer.
New website: http://www.justinlall.com
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,615
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2009-April-25, 17:42
JLOL, on Apr 25 2009, 10:13 PM, said:
In theory you should lead low to the ten, catering to stiff J onside.
Disagree.
Low to the King or Queen is better, catering to a stiff Jack in either hand.
Quote
In practice run the 9 is much much better, you lose to stiff jack, break even on AJ(x), but gain on all the times they don't cover. It is unlikely a good player would miss a cover from Jxx or Jx, but they often will from Jxxx or longer and AJxx or longer.
Agree (even though you lose to 2 stiff Jacks).
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
Page 1 of 1