[Pict]

Declarer has, of course, been extremely unwise - demonstrated by the fact that he would have lost his slam (subject to appeal!) if several of the posters were the TD called.

I would take the view that the repeat of the finesse is implied in his statement and that 70E1 does not apply.

I don't think, by the way, that weak players finesse the nine in this position.

[barmar]

Pict, on Jan 21 2010, 03:42 AM, said:

I don't think, by the way, that weak players finesse the nine in this position.

True, novices don't play card combinations well.

So the implication is that they're good enough to finesse the 9, but not good enough to consider that an expert LHO would falsecard with KJ doubleton.

[lamford]

The right line in the suit at this point is to cash the queen and then play for the drop (unless East shows out)! Gnasher is correct that low to the ten or eight at the start (around 76%) was right. On the chosen line, West has an obligatory falsecard from both KJx and KJxx which should be pretty obvious even for an intermediate player. I would be mortified if I did not find it (though Stefanie says she would be amazed if I did).

But all sensible lines are rational, and I would award a trick to the jack even when East began with Jxx. If there is Jx with East, the decision gets close, as low to the ten on the second round might be irrational. In the case in question it seems a trivial award of one more trick in this suit to the defenders.

[jeremy69]

I think it is,at least, possible that declarer has miscounted and believes he can cash from the top now he has lost a trick to the King so I would not allow him to gain 3 tricks here. His claim is careless because he did not state any line.
I don't think others should have to bend over backwards to decide what line he would have taken. If he can't be bothered he will, as a consequence, surrender a trick.

[gnasher]

lamford, on Jan 23 2010, 02:10 PM, said:

Gnasher is correct that low to the ten or eight at the start (around 76%) was right.

I actually said that running the queen was correct. From the point of view of winning three tricks, the two are, I think, equivalent.

On the actual hand there was no alternative source of tricks, so it would be better to run the queen, making an overtrick against singleton jack offside.

[lamford]

I agree. They are identical for 3 tricks, but running the queen is better for max tricks. Apologies.

[gnasher]

me said:

On the actual hand there was no alternative source of tricks

I'd better nitpick this before somebody else does.

That was almost certainly incorrect. The hand with Q93 must have a potential loser somewhere. Any potential loser is also a potential winner, so if Paul found singleton king on the left he'd have twelve tricks without losing one, and RHO would be a candidate for a squeeze (if necessary a criss-cross).

We could know that was impossible only if we had something like Ax A1082 Qxx AKxx opposite Kxx Q93 AKx QJxx, and had seen RHO follow to three minor-suit cards. Or, I suppose, 1444 opposite 2344, with the spade communication having been removed at trick one.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Jan 23 2010, 08:10 AM, said:

On the chosen line, West has an obligatory falsecard from both KJx and KJxx which should be pretty obvious even for an intermediate player.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's trade addresses and if anyone can think of a way to prove it, I bet you $5,000 that either
- we give a defensive problem with that answer to 100 intermediate players and no more than 3 get it right.
- we give a defensive problem with that answer to 100 experts and no more than 25 get it right.
You can choose which. At the table it would be more like 0 and 5 than 3 and 25, but obviously when given the hand as a problem people do a lot better.

[gnasher]

Can I (a) choose the experts and (b) have a piece of the action?

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 23 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

- we give a defensive problem with that answer to 100 experts and no more than 25 get it right.

I would certainly be happy to back the experts there. For the problem to be realistic, there would need to be some reason for declarer to play low to the nine in the suit early on, and that would almost certainly be only one entry to the Q9x hand. I would want to choose the experts, but I can see no practical way of not presenting it as a problem, without great expense.

My estimate would be that 75%+ of the experts would get it right over the table, and 100% if presented as a problem. I recall the one and only time asking the late and great Paul Soloway an opinion. I wondered whether my line in 6NT was the right one in the nationals in Hawaii - he was two tables away in the same polarity. He replied "probably not, as I played the same line." So we cannot ask the experts if they would get it right over the table - they are too modest. "An expert", said woubit, "is someone who knows what he should have done just after he does the wrong thing."

But we don't care whether the player would or would not find the false card in practice; we are only interested in what lines are rational and which aren't. And cashing the queen and running the ten are both rational on the second round.

[lamford]

gnasher, on Jan 23 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

me said:

On the actual hand there was no alternative source of tricks

I'd better nitpick this before somebody else does.

That was almost certainly incorrect. The hand with Q93 must have a potential loser somewhere. Any potential loser is also a potential winner, so if Paul found singleton king on the left he'd have twelve tricks without losing one, and RHO would be a candidate for a squeeze (if necessary a criss-cross).

We could know that was impossible only if we had something like Ax A1082 Qxx AKxx opposite Kxx Q93 AKx QJxx, and had seen RHO follow to three minor-suit cards. Or, I suppose, 1444 opposite 2344, with the spade communication having been removed at trick one.

My database suggests low to the ten is better if it is the trump suit, for max tricks. Running the queen costs when the next person shows out. If it was no-trumps, then your line of running the queen is still best, even without the information that there were no potential tricks elsewhere. You make four tricks immediately when you pin the jack, while I just avoid a loser by playing low to the ten when the stiff king appears, so I only save part of a trick, depending on the rest of the hand.

But I feel we are getting sidetracked from the main theme of the hand. I am astonished that anybody would allow this claim.

[Pict]

I'd assume that playing toward Q9x expected to gain from the psychological pressure on East, rather than being ignorant of the obvious double finesse.

[lamford]

Pict, on Jan 23 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

I'd assume that playing toward Q9x expected to gain from the psychological pressure on East, rather than being ignorant of the obvious double finesse.

Indeed. If East will always play the king when he has it, and West will never win with the king when the jack will do, which would be the case with most beginners, then the line is narrowly best. You lose no constituencies, and pick up the previously safe KJx with East.

[gnasher]

lamford, on Jan 24 2010, 02:36 AM, said:

Indeed. If East will always play the king when he has it, and West will never win with the king when the jack will do, which would be the case with most beginners, then the line is narrowly best. You lose no constituencies, and pick up the previously safe KJx with East.

It was probably the right line then: I was East.

[Pict]

A final thought.

If the Director judges that the most likely interpretation was a mental blind spot on declarer's part, where he thinks he can cash out - then declarer pays a heavy price for carelessness in the play or in his claim.

As Director I would feel very uncomfortable in that situation if West then showed me his expert Jack of Hearts. I don't see how I could change my judgement to give West what he might well deserve.

[lamford]

Pict, on Jan 24 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

A final thought.

If the Director judges that the most likely interpretation was a mental blind spot on declarer's part, where he thinks he can cash out - then declarer pays a heavy price for carelessness in the play or in his claim.

As Director I would feel very uncomfortable in that situation if West then showed me his expert Jack of Hearts. I don't see how I could change my judgement to give West what he might well deserve.

I was proposing to award a trick to the jack of hearts wherever it was located, so that West would be awarded a trick if he began with KJ doubleton. I think also, on reflection, that I would award a trick to East if he began with Jx, as playing low to the ten on the second round is inferior, not irrational (i.e. inferior to cashing the queen). So, bizarrely, as a TD, I do not need to see the layout of the suit to rule; I just need to establish which cards were played to the first round of the suit, and I award a trick to the jack wherever it is and whether or not it is dropping. That must be unique.

[jdonn]

Why don't you also award a trick to the jack of hearts if the opponents already discarded it? Good grief...

I mean maybe I just need to brush up on the definition of irrational. Now you are saying that plays which are completely nullo (finessing the ten coming back) are rational. I don't buy that at all.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 24 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

Why don't you also award a trick to the jack of hearts if the opponents already discarded it? Good grief...

I mean maybe I just need to brush up on the definition of irrational. Now you are saying that plays which are completely nullo (finessing the ten coming back) are rational. I don't buy that at all.

On the first point, because a trick cannot be won by discarding the jack of hearts.

44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps
A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has contributed to it the highest card of the suit led.

If the jack of hearts was discarded, it could not therefore have won that trick.

I think you do need to brush up on the definition of "irrational". And "inferior" while you are about it. There are several good dictionaries available at Amazon. After the first round of this suit had been played, the respective chances of each line are as follows:

Q then A 0.581
Q + Fin 0.562
Run 10 0.547
Cash ace 0.534
Low to 10 0.500

It is clear to me that the last line is inferior, or careless. But none is irrational. Playing the ace and putting the queen on it would be, however. And even that comes in at 0.124, a distant last.

[fred]

If this claim had been made in a "strong game" it would 1000% obvious that declarer meant to finesse against the Jack of hearts again. It is hard for me to imagine anyone even calling the TD for this (in a strong game).

If someone called the TD against me for this I suspect I would have trouble not laughing. I would hope many TDs, if called, would find this laughable as well.

Of course it would be a good idea to call the TD if the Jack of hearts is actually offside

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[StevenG]

How much of this is relevant? The claim statement was that declarer now had three heart tricks. Only lines of play where declarer expects to make three tricks without any further thinking should be considered. That means either that he will repeat the finesse (and go off to KJ doubleton), or that he has forgotten that some card (but what?) is out.

Lines where declarer knows that he might not have three tricks, and plays the odds accordingly, are not consistent with the claim statement.