[benlessard]

Scoring: MP

---

(Pass)--2Nt----------4S (no transfers)

D7,A,6,3
CA,4,7,2
C5,6,ruff,3
S4,6,A,Q

Do you agree so far and whats next ?

[bucky]

Another club ruff trying for an overtrick (but risk down 1)? It also depends on your assessment of the field: would everyone reach 4♠?

[rduran1216]

club ruff is the only choice, otherwise we have entry problems to dummy

[wank]

i thinky uo have to try for the [extra?] OT - anyone receiving a non-diamond lead will be able to try for it in safety. would be more difficult if lho led an honour, which is likely to be the standard lead assuming noone has transfers in this day.

[Fluffy]

try for the overtricks.

[ceeb]

I see a better case for playing safe than risky.

Compared to the safe play of cashing the other top ♠, a risky immediate ♣ ruff breaks even when ♣ are 4-3 and ♠ are 2-2.
1. Losses
a. in the very unlikely case that LHO didn't lead a ♣ from ♣QJ10xx and RHO can ruff in from original ♠QJ
b. in the unlikely case that LHO has ♣xx and RHO made a great falsecard from ♠Qx
c. Therefore almost only when LHO has ♠J9x and ♣xx.
2. Gains -- only if LHO has 3♠s and 4♣s. LHO won't have ♥x, so would practically need to be 3244.

Based on dealing probabilities the risky play loses by about 2:1. As against that maybe RHO would sometimes play a helpful club at trick 2 when holding ♣QJ10xx. (I realize I may be yelled at for raising such a dull idea in this forum.)

The point that some of the field (especially if declaring by North) will get a different lead and be able to play safely is appealing but seems to me to have limited application. Compared to those tables, our risky play loses when the cards lie badly and our safe play loses when they lie well. Hence we have a negative expectation either way and if for example the bad lie is a 2:1 favorite, we expect -2/3 from the risky play and -1/3 from the safe play. Thus this does not seem to be one of those hands where bad luck at trick 1 justifies taking a chance to "catch up" with the field.

[bucky]

ceeb, on Sep 18 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

2. Gains -- only if LHO has 3♠s and 4♣s. LHO won't have ♥x, so would practically need to be 3244.

Technically speaking, it also gains if RHO has ♠QJ9 to begin with, along with 4 clubs, though I realize it is unlikely RHO plays a deep game and false card ♠Q.

[ceeb]

bucky, on Sep 18 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

ceeb, on Sep 18 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

2. Gains -- only if LHO has 3♠s and 4♣s. LHO won't have ♥x, so would practically need to be 3244.

Technically speaking, it also gains if RHO has ♠QJ9 to begin with, along with 4 clubs, though I realize it is unlikely RHO plays a deep game and false card ♠Q.

Good catch.

I at first listed that case but for no reason that makes sense at the moment crossed it off. Big mistake. Given the inferences of red suit length with LHO, RHO is hugely likely to have been dealt 3♠ and 4♣. True, the holding should be discounted pro-rata based on RHO's probability to choose exactly the ♠Q to play from ♠QJx, but even if you figure 1/3 for each card it now seems to me that the chance of RHO holding ♠QJx and ♣xxxx exceeds either of the other probabilities that I computed and compared.

[benlessard]

playing Q from QJ9 is too likely to cost a trick for a falsecard if RHO doesnt have 5C. It was an old indy tournament so i suppose they werent playing texas here so i assume everybody is in 4S by south.

I think cashing another S is better since if you want to go overtricks with trumps 3-1 you need 3S and 4C for wich mean that reds are splits 6-9. The risk that lho has only 2C (mean that the reds are 8-7 is simply more likely.) I dont think the defense is going to get it wrong iff LHO overuff.

[ceeb]

benlessard, on Sep 19 2010, 07:49 PM, said:

playing Q from QJ9 is too likely to cost a trick for a falsecard if RHO doesnt have 5C.

Can you spell this out? It looks to me like a free and routine play. The only cost I can dream up is the specific case of ♠QJx ♣xx and declarer next plays a club.

[JLOGIC]

What are their leads and carding?

I am now totally convinced that the number one mistake people make as declarers is not taking into account what happens at trick 1, it is by far the most important thing to do, and is very important to this hand (at least in possibly eliminating LHO having 4 clubs and 3 spades).

[benlessard]

that the problem its not even written. its old LM indy so i assume everybody is playing standard count att. There is no comment about the 4S bid instead of transfers.

i think rho has

q
axxx
kj6
qjtxx

the book dont say if rho play J or 6, dont really said wich club it played at trick 3. Really worse it says nothing about keeping the 2 of trumps to reach dummy if S are 22

Kehela played a club and went down. Kaplan says playing for the overtrick was the best line.

[benlessard]

Quote

CCan you spell this out? It looks to me like a free and routine play. The only cost I can dream up is the specific case of ♠QJx ♣xx and declarer next plays a club.

i was seeing declarer played the Kc wich is unreasonnable.

if u have qj9 and xxx in clubs. on the 4th clubs u have to discard. allowing him to get to dummy if hes has Ax of h in his hand.

So the falsecard kind of change things indeed since you throw im off a good line if u have Qj9 in S and xxxx in clubs. (if your have 2,3,5 clubs falsecard change nothing right ?)

[pooltuna]

JLOGIC, on Sep 19 2010, 11:30 PM, said:

What are their leads and carding?

I am now totally convinced that the number one mistake people make as declarers is not taking into account what happens at trick 1, it is by far the most important thing to do, and is very important to this hand (at least in possibly eliminating LHO having 4 clubs and 3 spades).

true if the opps are playing 3rd/5th and UDCA then you can place the ♦ at LHO with 4 and RHO with 5. If the opps are using standard carding and 4th best leads it looks much murkier as the lead and signalling do not make sense.

[nige1]

benlessard, on Sep 17 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(Pass)--2Nt----------4S (no transfers) 
D7,A,6,3
CA,4,7,2
C5,6,ruff,3
S4,6,A,Q
Do you agree so far and whats next ?

---

IMO Kehela's line is best at pairs -- ruffing another club with ♠T. Other declarers may benefit from a non-diamond lead.

[ceeb]

nige1, on Sep 22 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

IMO Kehela's line is best at pairs -- ruffing another club with ♠T. Other declarers may benefit from a non-diamond lead.

It would be equally logical to argue the opposite -- that because other tables may be in an advantageous position that lets them try for the club break without risk, our best chance to catch up is to hope that the clubs don't work.

The matchpoint math prefers whichever argument corresponds to the best chance. If the club play is say 50%+x to succeed, then comparing against the declarer who gets a free ride, risking the club ruff ties 50%+x and loses a match point 50%-x for a net negative expectation of 50%-x. Similarly, not risking the club ruff ties the 50%-x that the clubs lie badly and loses otherwise for a negative expectation of 50%+x. Hence what you should do depends only on whether x is positive or negative regardless of the lead at other tables.

That said, if Kehela thinks x>0 it probably is.