nielsfoged

This discussion has taken an interesting and relevant twist compared to my original purpose with it, and I appreciate you comments and agree with you, that Declarer might have chosen one or more superior lines of play by using partial elimination and end play. However, I was a rather passive defender in West attending the described Declarer play. My impression was that if East holds 6/T/-/K, when in on ♣T, he should return ♥T expecting declarer to finess in ♣, whereas if holding 6/T/-/J in the end position, he should return ♠6, which for sure exposes his restricted choise situation in ♣, and may tempt declarer to raise with ♣A. I would be grateful, if you would comment on that aspect, too! One weakness in my analysis (you may find more!) is that when East plays ♥T, Declarer will (almost?) know that East has ♠6 anyway, since West effortlessly throws ♣3 and not the last ♠ in that trick! /Niels

East either started with ♣KT (he must use T first time) or ♣JT (he will use T first time in approx 50% of the situations)! However, when in on ♣T, why did East in trick 11 return the 4th ♠, which declarer didn't know he had, rather than the last ♥, he was sure to posses due to the bidding? /Niels

[hv=pc=n&s=st95hadkjt652c965&n=sakqh643daq8caq74&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2n3h5dp6dppp]266|200[/hv] ♥Q-3-2-A ♦2-3-Q-4 ♥4-K-♦T-♥8 ♦5-7-A-♥5 ♦8-♥7-♦K-9 3x♠ where W follows ♠7-8-J and East follows 2-3-4 ♥6-9-♦6-♥J ♣5-2-4-T ♠6!!-♦J-♣3-7 So before you play ♣ from 96 towards AQ in trick 12, this is what you know (♣J and K not included but divided between W and E): [hv=pc=n&s=st95hadkjt652c965&w=sj87hqj8d973c?832&n=sakqh643daq8caq74&e=s6432hkt9752d4c?t&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2n3h5dp6dppp]399|300[/hv] West play ♣8 on your 6 and has either ♣J or K besides that. East has ♥T and either ♣K or J besides that. Do you play ♣Q or A from the Table? /Niels

Seems I need to add a couple of apologies for distracting from the actual bridge problem (which I hope you afterall agree is there): 1) Apologies to all of you with English as first language. The title "Man or Wife" was not intended as sexist or discriminating, except that I hoped it would indicate to you that the pick of next card most likely would be between leading up to ♣K or leading ♣Q. I hoped it to be funny, but probably then should have restricted the audience to Dutch or Danish players (not that being from these small, flat countries and having slightly more flexible upper lips would guarantee any amusement either) - so sorry ;) 2) And more importantly please excuse me for having included two ♠4: The third trick was ♠Q, A, 5, ♥5! strongly indicating the original ♠-suit in N to be 96542. /Niels

The point about a possible opening hand in South is valid, but you seem to play for down 1 (at least)? 4♠+1♥+1♣ <_< /Niels

That is a good point, which indicate that opponents are maybe not the only ones to be mediocre :huh:

[hv=pc=n&w=sat7h83dqjt94ck83&e=s83hak765da83cq76&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1n(10-13%20%5Bsemi%5Dbal)p2d(trsf)p2h(2-3%20hearts)p2nppp]266|200[/hv] Matchpoints: large inhomogeneus field. Lead ♠4 (2nd/4th) to 3, J and 7. ♠K, T, 2, 8 ♠Q, A, 5*, ♥5 [* ♠5 not 4, edited on July 10] ♦Q, 2, 3, 5 ♦J, 7, ...8(?), 6 (that could have been the problem, but not here!) ♦4, K, A, ♣4 Which card from the Table now, and why (does it matter whether your opponents are mediocre or strong)? /Niels

I agree, and it was first after I played the board, I started thinking of all the fancy stuff. Already in his first reply Fluffy noticed, that I phrased my question to inspire fancy answers :P - at least some were inspired!

Yes, I had the double duck (not the dish though! - but ♦2+♦7) in mind. However, I think playing the J on 2nd round is too suspicious to work. What diamond position would LHO who likely holds Q98x imagine? - Could it be AKxxx in his partners hand, or could he think that we played low twice from AJ2 with T3 on table to break communications, but lose a stopper and a trick? What about something less fancy, if you take ♦A immediately. Would you rather play ♦ again immediately or would you take the 5 club-tricks first and hope that discards became too uncomfortable for the opponents (and the table!) maybe claryfying the spade-position? What about something more fancy, playing ♥ yourself. If so, must it come from the table to have any chance at all? I neither had the guts to play ♥T in trick 2, nor wanted to play small ♣ to the J and then play ♥, most of all because it would be almost offending to try to pull that trick against these opponents. /Niels

No, this hand is not home-cooked. I played it on BBO yesterday, and did not do anything fancy - probably I should have! However, there were too many dishes to choose from, and too short time to pick. So, if the most delicious one is clear to you, Fluffy, I am ready to taste it. Does it come in double portions? :)

[hv=pc=n&s=sa3hjtdaj72cakq92&n=skj954h8642dt3cj8&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c(9-11%20bal%20/%20any%2015+)dp(3+%20cl%2C%200-9)1sp(9-11)2c(nat%2C%20strong%20but%20NF)p2hp3nppp]266|200[/hv] IMPS. Very strong opponents. Lead ♦8 (3rd/5th). If you play low (as I assume) East produces ♦K. How do you play (anything fancy on your mind)? /Niels

Thanks Rainer I like that example, though that is probably at least as rare as mine. For example, we lead the A from AKxxx, table has QJx and partner and declarer share T8642. If partner now plays the 4 (UDCA from T4, 84 or 64), and declarer wrongly just plays up the line with the 2 (from 862, T62 or T82), we know that partner has the doubleton (or four :( ). Again the proposed rule of thumb for declarer seems to work: use their count principle by playing the middle (or high) from three, when opponents play UDCA, but never low! /Niels

POSTER'S COMMENT: By mistake I posted this topic both here and in the "Advanced and Expert-Class Bridge" (AECB) forum. Thank you to Kenberg and Mbodell for their fine comments above, but please read the topic and continue the discussion at the AECB forum rather than here! I appologize for the incovenience Niels.

Ahhhh, sorry! After having written the topic (too?) late last night, I looked for it this morning under "Advanced and Expert-Class bridge", and thought it was lost, since I couldn't find it. Thanks to your comment, I now see, I made it under General Discussions by mistake (or it was moved by the discussion board organizer?). I appologize for the incovenience, and have now tried to stop the continuation of the thread under General Discussions. However, please allow me to copy the two fine comments by Kenberg and Mbodell to here: Kenberg wrote: Mbodell wrote: /Niels

I am not talking about leads, but counts. I don't think that many UDCA players play high from doubleton when partner leads the A, and they want to give count. /Niels

I think this a restricted choice situation? If partner has T and Declarer plays X from XY, he had a (50-50?) choice. If partner has TY, then Declarer must play X (100%). I know this argument works against the point of my example, that a non-expert (or an unprepared expert) will be less likely to play the correct T from T2, when we play the 6 and have the Standard count agreement, but...! /Niels

Probably, there are thorough comparative analyses of Standard counts vs. UDCA, and the observation below is likely to be just one among many examples of the skewness between the two agreements of which some will argue for the advantage of Standard counts, and probably(?) almost the same number will argue for UDCA. Still, as a UDCA-fan, the following example scared me: Against a trump contract you lead the A in your long suit not having the K, but hoping to find partner with shortness. You are partially right, since your partner and declarer share 3 small between them, and they are either 2-1 or 1-2 (you get the trick!). Would you now prefer to play Standard counts or UDCA? Say you are missing the T, 6 and 2. Then the following scenarios are relevant, if your agreement is Standard counts: * If partner plays the 2, you know he has a singleton no matter what declarer plays. * If partner plays the 6 (from 62 or 6), you know he has the singleton, if declarer plays the 2, and a well-prepared expert declarer will therefore always(!) play the T, thereby making your guess 50-50. * If partner plays the T (from T6, T2, or T), your guess of him having a doubleton will be correct in 2/3 of the cases, no matter what declarer plays. The scenarios are equal, if your agreement is UDCA. However, if your partner now plays the 6 (from T6 or 6), the well-prepared expert declarer must always play the 2 in order to make your guess 50-50. It is my contention that in this example, the non-expert (or the unprepared expert) is more likely to play the same card as the well-prepared expert, if you play UDCA, than if you play Standard counts, simply because it is more frequent to play the 2 than the T from T2, when you do not know that this is a crucial choice. Of course, if declarer erroneously think he should play randomly in this situation, he will choose the wrong card ½ of the times, no matter whether you play Standard counts or UDCA, but I propose that it is more frequent for this declarer to play the 2 from T2 than the T. Do you agree? I am not skipping UDCA just because of this example, but I am a little shaken. Anyone with examples that favor UDCA? /Niels PS: I think there is a rule for expert declarers to use the same signals as the opponents. That is: play your cards, as if you play their counts or their encouragements. In the situation described above: As declarer, you should play the T from T2, if it shows doubleton in opponents agreements, but 2 from T2, if their agrement is UDCA. If you have heard about that rule of thumb, too - do you have a reference? PPS: In the above example, all statistics were a priori. When the guess is "purely" 50-50 (partner plays the 6, and declarer plays the right card), I believe it is probably more likely that partner has the doubleton, since declarer will typically have more trumps, and therefore less free space, than partner. Of course, if partner plays his card very fast, the situation is quite different...! ;)

POSTER'S COMMENT: By mistake I posted this topic both here and in the "Advanced and Expert-Class Bridge" (AECB) forum. Thank you to Kenberg and Mbodell for their fine comments below, but please read the topic and continue the discussion at the AECB forum rather than here! I have copied their replies over there as well. Sorry for the inconvenience. Niels. Normally, I would expect Standard and UDCA counts to be approximately equally good, but I noticed the following situation, which may be just one among several, where there seems to be skewness: When I lead the A from a long suit without the K against a trump contract in expection of shortness in partners hand, and this is (partially) confirmed by the fact that partner and declarer share 3 small cards either 2-1 or 1-2 (my A holds), would I then prefer that our agreement was Standard count or UDCA from doubleton? Say partner and declarer share the T, 6 and 2. Playing Standard the following scenarios are relevant. * Partner plays 2 (from 2). We always guess his singleton no matter what declarer plays. * Partner plays 6 (from 62 or 6). If declarer plays the 2, we know the 6 is singleton, so a well-prepared expert declarer will always play the T from T2. In that case our guess is down to 50-50. * Partner plays T (from T2, T6 or T). No matter what declarer plays, we will be correct in guessing partner to have a doubleton in 2/3 of the cases. Playing UDCA the scenarios will be parallel, but a small difference is, however, apparent and perhaps relevant. When our partner plays the 6 (from T6 or 6), the well-prepared expert declarer will know to always play the 2 from T2, since only that will bring our guess down to 50-50. However, when we play UDCA, the non-expert (or the unprepared expert!) will typically (>>50%) do the same, that is play the 2 from T2. I think these non-experts or unprepared expert declarers will more rarely (<<50%) be able to play the T from T2 against us, when our agreement is Standard counts. Do you agree? ...and more importantly, can you help me to become happy with UDCA again? /Niels A little PS: The above statistics are a priori. I guess that typically declarer will have more trumps than partner and therefore less space for the doubleton than partner. If the a priori chance is 50-50, partner seems to be more prone to have the doubleton... ...of course unless he plays his card very fast ;)

I have recently been very inspired by the article on p. 11-12 of My link, so I am obliged to suggest a major suit lead. ♠8 it is! OK, maybe I am over-inspired! /Niels

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hk954daqt3caqt9&n=s974h6dk982cj8652&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1d(12+%2C%20%5B4%5D5+D%20unbal)p3d(4-7)d4c(Lead%20direct%3F)p5dppp]266|200[/hv] Lead ♠J (promises T, perhaps internal seq.) to A, and ♠3 return. What now?

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skqhqdkjt82cqjt54&s=sjt2hjt8daq54ca83]133|200|Scoring: MP 1NT(12-14)-2♦(multi*)-3NT-a.p.[/hv] *EW plays "Multi"-defense over weak 1NT-opening: Dbl: 14+ 2♣: both majors 2♦: 6-card major 2Ma: 5-card major and sidesuit in minor 2NT: minors Lead: ♥5 to A and ♥7 to K and ♥4 to J (East follows with ♥2) Discards from North: ♠Q and ♠K. If/when you now play ♦4 to T on table, West discards ♣6. You are playing in a 60-pair MP field for National championships. What now? /Niels

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s75ht965d9cqjt973]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass); 2♣-(Pass)-Pass-(2♦); 2♥-(2♠)-Pass-(Pass); 3♣...etc![/hv] Did South abide the Law or bid illegally? If unlawful, when did it go wrong: * 1st bid should have been 2♥ not 2♣? * 2nd bid should have been Pass (or 3♣) not 2♥? * 3rd bid... ...how could South even think of a third bid with this hand? * ...?...

Yes, 20-23 means HCP's

Like it or not, your partner and you are playing a new home-made artificial system ("Pattern"). Your opponents are World Class, and you are eager to show them that your system is functionable during this 32-board team match. At least they stay out of the bidding, which goes: 1♥-1♠; 2♦-2♥, 3♦-? 1♥=17+ Any balanced or Marmic (4441-type) hand 1♠=Relay, all hands except weak unbalanced 2♦=20-23, Marmic 2♥=Gameforcing relay 3♦=4-4-4-1, singleton clubs Is it easy?[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skq8h642dj97ck542]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

This weekend during the Danish Bridge Festival, I faced the following bidding by my opponents (no interference from us): 1♠-2NT, 3♣-4♣, 4♥-4NT, 5♥-6NT, all pass. Before my lead, our opponents explained their partner's respective biddings: Declarer: "1♠ shows an opening hand with 5+ spades" Opener: "2NT is GF with spade support" Declarer: "3♣ minimum opening without singletons" Opener: "4♣ cuebid" Declarer: "4♥ cuebid, and no ♦ cuebid" Opener: "4NT is Roman Keycard" Declarer: "5♥ shows 2 aces of 5 and trump Q.....!!! After complete silence for 10 seconds, my partner and I bursted out in laughs together with Opener, whereas it took a little longer for Declarer to realize that he had just invented a new and smooth alternative to the Alcatraz Coup* (even in a NT-contract). :) * If you don't know this approx. 50 year old coup, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz_coup