[billw55]

han, on 2011-September-16, 04:08, said:

What's the problem with people getting them right? You have a lot of good B/I problems, this one may be one of the beginner's problems (though I bet no beginner would get this right at the table!), why make it any harder?

If you really want to make the problem harder, it is fine not to tell what the opponents will play next. I just disagree with the need of making the problems harder. I'll point out again that the B/I posters have stopped responding.

But making the problem harder by letting partner discard the spade 2 (postitive attitude!) is weird and completely unnecessary in my opinion.

Well, I consider myself an "I" poster.

One thing I am wondering. Is it normal for a/e players to spend this much thinking to plan out how they will defend if declarer shows up with a card that partner has ostensibly shown with his signal? For example if my partner lays down a queen on opening lead (with no evidence of shortness). Should I spend a large amount of thinking to plan out my contingency if declarer later leads the jack from hand? Is that how I need to be thinking to advance? Or should I assume partner has the jack *until* declarer plays it, and then rethink?

[inquiry]

han, on 2011-September-16, 04:08, said:

What's the problem with people getting them right? You have a lot of good B/I problems, this one may be one of the beginner's problems (though I bet no beginner would get this right at the table!), why make it any harder?

If you really want to make the problem harder, it is fine not to tell what the opponents will play next. I just disagree with the need of making the problems harder. I'll point out again that the B/I posters have stopped responding.

But making the problem harder by letting partner discard the spade 2 (postitive attitude!) is weird and completely unnecessary in my opinion.

Would discarding the spade four been any better? And if partner does not discard either the ♠2 or ♠4 then the contract will make. NOTE further, that I did not have the carding in the original problem, I added (see edit note) in response to a specific question about carding. Should I have said, carding is not relevant?

[inquiry]

han, on 2011-September-16, 04:08, said:

What's the problem with people getting them right? You have a lot of good B/I problems, this one may be one of the beginner's problems (though I bet no beginner would get this right at the table!), why make it any harder?

If you really want to make the problem harder, it is fine not to tell what the opponents will play next. I just disagree with the need of making the problems harder. I'll point out again that the B/I posters have stopped responding.

But making the problem harder by letting partner discard the spade 2 (positive attitude!) is weird and completely unnecessary in my opinion.

What card EAST plays on the third round of clubs is quite a conundrum. He could discard a high diamond to deny the ♦King by then the contract will make. He doesn't have a high ♠ (having the 2 or 4, and it could be worse, he could have the 2 and 3). Would discarding the spade four been any better? And if partner does not discard either the ♠2 or ♠4 then the contract will make. NOTE further, that I did not have the carding in the original problem, I had to add the carding (see edit note) in response to a specific question about carding after the original post was made (UDCA should have been obvious from trick one.two.three, but so be it). Should I have said, carding is not relevant in response to a question?

I am sorry if beginner/intermediates are not responding, only one problem (17) is probably solvable by beginners. I have even asked what is a good beginner problem. I consider the bulk of them high intermediate to low advance, this one I thought was high intermediate to low advanced. I think beginners might learn from reading the thought process (logic) expressed by people as they provide their answers. Many of the problems, including this one, are from an online student that were discovered in reviewing her online play with her where she miss defended (she considers herself high intermediate). I thought other might benefit from the problems. The last thing I want to do is post problems that are inappropriate. Since the criticism of this problem has been so vocal, I have already said I was going to leave it out of the next PDF I prepare for the Defensive play problems as being inappropriate. This in spite of the fact that I think it was a most excellent problem that is quite solvable at the table.

As you yourself have said, han, "count signal" is not needed. And right you are. To set the contract East has to throw a spade (any spade), and West has to think what is needed to defeat the contract. An EAST worried about giving partner the correct information might waste his only chance to set the contract by discarding a high diamond. A WEST infatuated with his partner signal might confuse himself by miss defending when his partner does throw a low spade (2 or 4). This is why I stopped the problem BEFORE the spade queen was played, so the player could think about the bridge problem at hand.

[han]

inquiry, on 2011-September-16, 08:29, said:

Would discarding the spade four been any better? And if partner does not discard either the ♠2 or ♠4 then the contract will make. NOTE further, that I did not have the carding in the original problem, I added (see edit note) in response to a specific question about carding. Should I have said, carding is not relevant?

I think it was a good choice to discard a spade!

As I said before, this set of problems is very good and this particular problem really is great. Not only are they from real life, they feel like real hands and the problems you face are like real world problems. The comment about the spade 2ruins part of it for me though, not only do I really disagree with it, it is also completely useless and outside of a beginning player's scope.

I would give the carding on every hand, and I like that you don't stick to the same carding. I wouldn't mention whether the carding is relevant (unless you think the problem needs a hint). If the play or bidding of one of the unseen hands is really bad though, it takes aways from the problem. I'd say the problem is better if partner discards the spade 4.

[han]

inquiry, on 2011-September-16, 09:17, said:

What card EAST plays on the third round of clubs is quite a conundrum. He could discard a high diamond to deny the ♦King by then the contract will make. He doesn't have a high ♠ (having the 2 or 4, and it could be worse, he could have the 2 and 3). Would discarding the spade four been any better? And if partner does not discard either the ♠2 or ♠4 then the contract will make. NOTE further, that I did not have the carding in the original problem, I had to add the carding (see edit note) in response to a specific question about carding after the original post was made (UDCA should have been obvious from trick one.two.three, but so be it). Should I have said, carding is not relevant in response to a question?

Now you are just being silly. Even beginners realize that if you hold 42, the 2 is low and the 4 is high.

The rest I reacted to already. If you don't want to hear my opinion, don't ask for opinions or specify that you don't want mine.

[han]

billw55, on 2011-September-16, 06:37, said:

One thing I am wondering. Is it normal for a/e players to spend this much thinking to plan out how they will defend if declarer shows up with a card that partner has ostensibly shown with his signal? For example if my partner lays down a queen on opening lead (with no evidence of shortness). Should I spend a large amount of thinking to plan out my contingency if declarer later leads the jack from hand? Is that how I need to be thinking to advance? Or should I assume partner has the jack *until* declarer plays it, and then rethink?

This is a great question. What do you think about when declarer or partner is thinking about what to play?

Generally you don't think along the lines of "what shall I do if declarer does this or that". What you should focus on is trying to figure out what everybody has. That's what you should do on this problem too. If you know what everybody has then you can try to figure out how the play can go and what you should be careful about (here: covering). You can only figure this out if you realize what's going on (or, what has to be going on in order to beat the contract).

In some situations you really should be prepared though. A common situation is a suit contract when dummy has a singleton. Partner leads, dummy wins trick 1 and is about to lead the singleton, will you play high with the ace? By doing so you make take away a guess (if declarer has KJ) or leave a finessable position (if declarer has QJ10x). But by ducking you might give away the contract. If you have to think before ducking you give away the contract anyway.

Another situation is when declarer leads up to the king-jack in dummy and you, sitting in front of dummy, hold the ace. Do you duck? Quite similar, if you have to think about it then you might give away a trick.