[Stephen Tu]

Quote

So at IMPs, needing 4 tricks you should play the A, and needing 3 tricks you should run the 9. But what about if you need 2 tricks?

A 100% line for 3 tricks is obviously also 100% for 2 tricks. For a problem you'd have to specify how many tricks you can afford to give up before getting those 2 tricks.

Quote

And at MPS, assuming you are in a normal-looking contract and not doubled and not in desperate need of a top and so on, what line should one take? Does it depend on how many tricks you need for the contract or should one always try for 4 tricks regardless or always go for the maximum expected number regardless?

You should take the line that maximizes your matchpoint expectation, which depends on many factors. If you feel you are in a normal contract with practically the entire field and have gotten normal defense, then you should take the "mp-best" line, which is often but not always the "max expected tricks" line. It's not always equivalent, because max expected tricks will be effected by the number of trick difference between two lines on a combination, while "mp-best" is only affected by there being any difference.

E.g. the max-trick line of AQT9xx opposite xxx is low to the Q, but mp-best is low to the T (assuming you have entries to pick up the 4-0 split, and no particular reason to discount the possiblity of a 4-0 split).

But sometimes you can estimate that there won't be any appreciable MP difference between down 1 / down 2, so if you need 4 tricks you just go ahead and take the 4 trick line, or maybe you think just making it will be a great score so you take the safety play for 3. MP is often a tough game to estimate where you are relative to the field.

[arrows]

I still believe low to Queen is better

According to SUITPLAY,
the chances of getting 4 tricks by playing low to Q are roughly
4% less than those of playing Ace first.

But the chances of East holding Kx are about 6.8%,
I believe few of opponents will duck the King smoothly

[Free]

Whenever it's not a 100% line, there will always be some holdings which the line will fail. The problem with suit combinations is to get the highest %. Ofcourse you'll lose against Kx in West, but playing low to the Q also loses against any stiff K... Percentages don't lie, A first is best

[fred]

OK I think it's time for the answer. I have never known Suitplay to be wrong before, but either it is here or it is being misused or I am missing something about this suit combination.

When I saw this combination at the table, the intuitive play for me was to lead low to the Queen without cashing the Ace first. Evidently most of the field in the Blue Ribbon Pairs felt the same way since the actual layout was:

KJxx 10

Once the Queen lost to the King, most of these people presumably knew enough about restricted to choice to (correctly) take the 2nd round finesse (since this play picks up stiff J or 10 on your right and loses to J10 doubleton it is roughly a 2 to 1 favorite versus playing for the drop on the second round).

So most of the actual field made 3NT by playing this way.

I have enough experience with similar combinations to know that the "intrafinesse" is never the % play so I did not consider that. However, I decided to compare my instinctive line to the line of cashing the Ace first. This is what I learned:

Cashing the Ace first loses in each of the following layouts:

KJxx 10
K10xx J
J10 Kxx

Cashing the Ace first gains in each of the following layouts:

Kxx J10
K J10xx
KJ 10xx
K10 Jxx

If the cases in which LHO has J10, KJ, and K10 seem to be misplaced to you, the reason you should duck the second round after having cashed the Ace on the first round is due to "restricted choice" (gaining in 2 cases, KJ and K10, and losing in 1 case, J10 doubleton).

So it is clearly right to cash the Ace first. Seems that the BBO Forums crowd has better instincts than me (and better instincts then the average player in the Blue Ribbon Pairs), but in retrospect I wish I had stuck to my instincts!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

PS If this suit combination discussions are to continue, I think it would be better if people did not post Suitplay output until everyone has had a chance to think about the problems and express their thoughts should they choose to. Being told the answer right away ruins the problem. Besides that, you are doing yourself a disservice by using this program - trying to figure these things out on your own can only be good for your bridge!

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

OK I think it's time for the answer. I have never known Suitplay to be wrong before, but either it is here or it is being misused or I am missing something about this suit combination.

Suitplay is correct here. Best play for 4 tricks is indeed cash ace. But max-trick & mp-best (if you are in field contract) is low to Q without cashing ace, as it confirms. So the Blue ribbon field is correct to lead low to Q, if most everyone is in the same boat, and there is some reason LHO would be hesitant to lead from 4/5 to the K (e.g. your side bid the suit). But they are wrong if the goal is to make, and down 1/down 2 has little difference. It's often impossible to know at the time which of these situations actually hold. You often only know after seeing the score distribution afterwards ...

Quote

Cashing the Ace first loses in each of the following layouts:

KJxx 10
K10xx J
J10 Kxx

It also loses a trick to
KJTx x
KJTxx -

which doesn't help you make but might leave you down 2 rather than
down 1. But if you didn't bid this suit, the possibilities of these last holdings are greatly diminished, since opening leader might have led from such a suit. So the MP-best probably is cash the ace, given lack of other information. Suitplay doesn't take into account such inferences, as it operates in a vacuum.

Quote

So it is clearly right to cash the Ace first

... If you think there is a large MP difference between making / down 1, but small difference between down 1 / down 2, which depends on how much of the field is in the same contract you are. Or if you think there is a reasonably strong inference from the lead that LHO doesn't hold KJTx(x), which is probably correct.

Quote

Besides that, you are doing yourself a disservice by using this program - trying to figure these things out on your own can only be good for your bridge!

I disagree. One should think through what the answer is first on one's own, and why, but then use the program to double-check your thinking. You may discover you are in error; it's very easy to overlook something.

Also sometimes suitplay gives a result or line for a combination that you don't find to be intuitive, it doesn't really explain it for you, but if you think about it you can reason out what the defense is supposed to be doing in terms of falsecards and such, So it doesn't do everything for you, you still have thinking to do.

[fred]

Stephen,

In my post I chose to include only the relevant cases in the interest of making my description of the solution as clear as possible. To include other combinations in my analysis would have amounted to little more than noise.

The problems are not being discussed in terms of matchpoints or even "real bridge" for that matter. They are pure suit combination problems - extra undertricks are not important.

The layouts in your post are not relevant to the problem as it was presented.

If you only use Suitplay to check your thinking then good for you, but in my experience many players are far to quick use programs like Suitplay and Deep Finesse. If you make the decision to never use these programs until you *know* that you have the right answer, you will be better off in my view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The problems are not being discussed in terms of matchpoints or even "real bridge" for that matter. They are pure suit combination problems - extra undertricks are not important.

Well, you were the one that brought up the fact that it was in the Blue ribbon pairs and commented on what the field did ... If you want a pure suit combination discussion my feeling is you shouldn't mention these things. The solution to the pure suit combination problem was already well established, and other people had already brought up the question of what one should do at matchpoints

Quote

If you make the decision to never use these programs until you *know* that you have the right answer, you will be better off in my view

Certainly one should make an effort to get the right answer first, the exercise is useful, and one has to learn the methods of how to compare one line to another, and practice so that you can work things out at the table. But after you have studied many combinations, read through Roudinesco a few times, and know all the main principles, the exercise starts to lose value. Sometimes you just want to know the answer, and the computer is more efficient.

Beginners/intermediates should make the effort to work it out by hand first. For experts I don't know that one wants to waste a lot of time with brute force on a complex combination (as opposed to this simple one, which can be worked out at the table) ... that's what computers are for. It frees you to study more combinations, which is more useful than the busywork of figuring out what the right line is just on one.

[fred]

Sorry if you my attempt to add some color into this thread confused you, Stephen. This was roughly the 4th suit combination thread presented in the last few days and the presumption in all of these has been problems has been the same.

You seem like you have an excellent mind for the game, but as I said in an earlier suit combination thread, there are plenty of people who are excellent at suit combinations who have never won anything significant.

To the best of my knowledge you fit into that category (I apologize if I am wrong about this, but I don't recognize your name). If you care about ever having real success at this game you should show some respect for the people who actually have some experience at winning. No matter how smart you are, these people just might know a little more than you about how a smart talented player can become a winning smart talented player.

Know-it-all types almost never get anywhere in bridge no matter how talented they are. Less talented players who are willing to listen are invariably more successful in the long run (if for no other reason than it is easier for such people to attract quality partners - nobody likes to play with a know-it-all).

Of course I don't expect you will listen to this advice either...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[sceptic]

Ouch, remind me not to piss Fred off

[fred]

Sorry if my words sounded harsh, but I don't like to be told that I am wrong in an area in which I have expertise, by a person who (to the best of my knowledge) lacks expertise in that area. I consider that rude and tend to respond accordingly.

Note that the part of my post the Stephen quoted ended with "in my view".

This suggests that I am willing to concede that there may be other views worth considering. You may have noticed that our best vugraph commentators (some who have won a lot more than I have) frequently include "in my view" or "in my opinion" in their comments. Not only does this imply a respect for the views of others, it also implies a respect for the game we play. None of us really "know it all", but the true champions are sometimes more willing to admit this than a lot of smart average players.

IN MY VIEW that is one of the reasons that these people are the ones that win. They are open to new ideas and viewpoints. Even if they don't always agree with the opinions of others, they are able to learn and improve by merely considering them and by adopting the ideas that they later judge to be valid.

If Stephen had included an "in my view", or "I respectfully disagree" or similar in his post, the tone and content of my response would certainly have been different (I would have told him why IN MY VIEW he is wrong).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[HeartA]

Fred,
While I agree with most you said, I respectfully disagree with one thing. Some players could be very good though they might not be known in the bridge world. One major reason is that they have their own professions and don't have the chance to play that much, to find a good partner, to become famous.

[Fluffy]

fred, on Jan 6 2005, 11:35 PM, said:

When I saw this combination at the table, the intuitive play for me was to lead low to the Queen without cashing the Ace first. Evidently most of the field in the Blue Ribbon Pairs felt the same way since the actual layout was:

KJxx 10

But if RHO played small smothly... would you had reconsidered about intrafinese?

[fred]

Fluffy, on Jan 7 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

fred, on Jan 6 2005, 11:35 PM, said:

When I saw this combination at the table, the intuitive play for me was to lead low to the Queen without cashing the Ace first. Evidently most of the field in the Blue Ribbon Pairs felt the same way since the actual layout was:

KJxx  10

But if RHO played small smothly... would you had reconsidered about intrafinese?

In the "real world", yes, depending on who RHO was.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

HeartA, on Jan 7 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

Fred,
While I agree with most you said, I respectfully disagree with one thing. Some players could be very good though they might not be known in the bridge world. One major reason is that they have their own professions and don't have the chance to play that much, to find a good partner, to become famous.

I agree with you HeartA.

The point of contention involved a suggestion that I was making that was intended for smart players who wanted to become successful players. This is something I know a lot about from my own personal experience as a someone who went through this transition, as someone who has extensive experience coaching both junior players and World Champions, and as someone who has played a lot of bridge with and against the best in the world.

One key factor in becoming a successful player is, as you suggest, the opportunity to spend a lot of time playing in high-level tournaments.

Another key factor is to develop the mental discipline to never play a card or make a bid until you know that you have solved the problem you face to the best of your ability. That is why over-reliance on programs like Suitplay and DF is a bad thing (in my view) - doing so makes you lazy. In my view (which is based on my experience), bad habits developed away from the table often manifest themselves at the table as well.

Without a doubt there are many many excellent players who are not famous and never will be, but there is a big difference between being an excellent player and a player who knows how to win.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Yzerman]

My 2 cents worth ....

I personally agree with the notion that experience outweighs knowledge while playing bridge. Knowledge is a GREAT starting point, and obviously one cant be successful until certain knowledge requirements are met, but until one has years of experience and/or thousands (10's of thousands, 100's of thousands ?) of deals under the belt I believe it is difficult to truly understand the game.

Knowing suit combinations is ONE thing, but having practical experience with those combinations is another ballgame. Many persons in the series of suit combination discussions have discussed 'table feel', opponents, falsecarding, and randomizing and these are all intangibles that are learned with experience.

I believe that is what makes bridge such a GREAT game. There is a rule or law for every play, every bid and every defense. But any given hand, a good (experienced) player will know how and or when to break the rules/laws. With respect to suit combinations, YES its great to have the knowledge of how to play them, but my belief is that its more important to know when to implement that knowledge.

I am NOT a teacher or pro or proclaim to be anything of the like, but I have a few friends that are new to bridge and I try as best I can to help them learn. Two things I constantly tell them;

1 - "Bridge is a game to think outside of the box. First learn how to think INSIDE the box, then learn how to think OUTSIDE of the box."

2 - "I will never criticize for any one certain bid or play, most important is that I help you learn how to THINK at the table. Reciting bids or card play to you is not going to accelerate your learning, but helping you learn the bridge thought process will."

Applying what i say earlier to the probelm suit combination in this post, my reactionary play is to play intrafinesse (low to J987). When honor or spot appear in 1st play of LHO, I will continue with the 'plan' of intrafinesse when the 10 appear I will reevaluate (who is opp? how fast card was played - he,he - ? auction/bidding? etc - all of those = experience) and then make a decision based upon those factors.

[Rebound]

fred, on Jan 5 2005, 09:33 PM, said:

A9876

Q32

You need 4 tricks.

Fred:

Clearly, since the solution has been posted, what I am about to suggest is not the best line, but I've been wondering why. To wit:

I was thinking about low to the 9 (presuming it loses), then leading the Q, hoping to pick up the K and crush the remaining honor since KJx or K10x offside is a losing situation anyway. Your thoughts?

[Stephen Tu]

Fred,

It disappoints me that you seem to have resorted to a "I am clearly a superior player, having won national titles and challenged deep at the world level while you have done nothing, therefore you should shut up & listen to me" argument. A good analysis will hold up under its own logic, regardless of the person making it. A good rebuttal will attack the points of the analysis. When you ignore the points made, and have to start attacking the credentials of the poster instead, you have lost the argument in my opinion. You are clearly a great bridge player, but that doesn't mean you will automatically be right about everything in bridge, and it shouldn't mean that your opinions are not subject to debate. (Of course as owner of this forum, you could just decree that you are not to be argued with, but I suspect that is not your intention, and that these forums are for free & open, respectful discussion).

I certainly value your opinions, especially on matters such as bidding judgment where expertise factors a lot. But on something like suit combinations there is a right answer, and how many titles you have won doesn't have an effect on the correctness of your answer.

At what point did I say you were wrong about the combination? I merely disagreed with you about the advisability of using computer programs to aid analysis. This is obviously my opinion, most of discussion on these boards is opinion, and to me it is a waste of typing to have to always add "respectfully, in my opinion" to every post to avoid it being taken the wrong way; shouldn't that just be a given? I never mean to disrespect anyone; sometimes it is hard to convey tone without vocal inflection, and one's writing style I guess can be misinterpreted. All my posts are meant with all due respect. But do I really have to cut & paste "I respectfully disagree" to every one of my posts to avoid being flamed?

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Clearly, since the solution has been posted, what I am about to suggest is not the best line, but I've been wondering why. To wit:

I was thinking about low to the 9 (presuming it loses), then leading the Q, hoping to pick up the K and crush the remaining honor since KJx or K10x offside is a losing situation anyway

Rebound, this line fails to pick up
Tx KJx
Jx KTx
xx KJT
Txx KJ
Jxx KT

all of which ace first does, so it's substantially worse.

The only time you lead low to the 9 & it loses to J/T, and leading the Q next time picks up the suit is when RHO has doubleton JT, which the ace line picks up anyway.

[fred]

Stephen Tu, on Jan 7 2005, 08:20 PM, said:

At what point did I say you were wrong about the combination? I merely disagreed with you about the advisability of using computer programs to aid analysis. This is obviously my opinion, most of discussion on these boards is opinion, and to me it is a waste of typing to have to always add "respectfully, in my opinion" to every post to avoid it being taken the wrong way; shouldn't that just be a given? I never mean to disrespect anyone; sometimes it is hard to convey tone without vocal inflection, and one's writing style I guess can be misinterpreted. All my posts are meant with all due respect. But do I really have to cut & paste "I respectfully disagree" to every one of my posts to avoid being flamed?

Stephen,

You never disagreed with my analysis of the suit combination and, if you had, it would have been easy to demonstrate which one of us had made the mistake. In fact, if you read my posts carefully you see that I was obviously impressed by your ability to solve these problems. I didn't say so explicitly, but it is clear to me that of all the people who have participated in all of the suit combination threads, you are one of the best at this.

What you did disagree with me about was my advice on how one should best utilize analysis software (or not utilize it) if one wants to maximize the benefit that he gains from these problems (the goal being to become as good a bridge player as you possibly can).

You could easily be just as good (or even better) than I am when it comes to solving suit combinations, but I believe I am in a much better position than you are to judge how a typical talented player can raise his or her game to the next level (that is, going from being talented to being a player who wins). The reason I believe this is because I have considerable experience and success in this area and, to the best of my knowledge, you do not.

Of course it is your right to disagree with me or anybody else about whatever subject you want, but the tone of your post suggested (to me) an air of authority that you have no right (in my opinion) to have. I find that offensive. It would be like me going up to Bob Hamman and telling him that 4-card majors sucked. Even if I believed that, I would never say it. I might ask Bob why he likes 4-card majors so much and, if I did not understand his reasons, I might ask him to clarify. However, I would not tell him he was wrong even if I thought his answers made no sense. I would realize I was talking to someone who was an expert in this field and try to learn as much from him as possible.

I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion. I have tried to explain why I reacted the way I did. I do not think I owe you an apology and I certainly do not require one from you. I am more than willing to let the matter drop.

If other people out there think I was way out of line with my comments, I will at least reconsider the concept of apologizing. Please make a post if you think that Stephen deserves an apology from me (but please read all of the relevant posts carefully before doing so).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Flame]

Maybe its just me, but when i have someone who know and whiling to share i shut up so ill have more time listening, so i can learn more, i only argue if there is something i didnt understand and doing this knowing im seeking to learn rather then oversmart the person.
If i finnaly find someone i know he know the game, like for example luis, i will read everything, actually it will even be ok if ill learn a mistake once in a while,at worst i will make an expert mistake.
Having someone like fred posting is just amzing.