mpefritz

The worst part about all these suit combinations is finding out how wrong my natural instincts are. :( fritz

What most analyses of suit combinations lack are: 1) The real likelihood of the combination. As I have mentioned several times and Stephen has spelled out, each split has a slightly different likelihood. So just listing the possibilites is a great first step, but incomplete. Using a program to calculate these exact numbers helps with the feel for what is REALLY correct as opposed to some guesstimate. Since I can easily create the odds by hand (and calculator) or on a spreadsheet myself, I have no qualms about using a program because I know the underlying principles. I also agree with Fred (and Stephen) that the odds calculators are probably a detriment to those who are still learning how to figure out suit combinations. (well..I think everyone is still learning..) 2) The odds that a player will play a certain card from a certain combination. for example, versus a newbie AJT98 7654 Lead 7,3,J,K Do you finesse the 2nd round by RC? What if the Q showed up? The point is that most newbies play smallest available, so the K rules out the Q and the Q gives no information. This was relevent on Fred's KQT987 32 hand. The strategy of what to do when EAST wins the A on the first round depends on EASTs likelihood of winning the A from Ax. In fact, if EAST wins the A from Ax more than 1/3 of the time, then NOT playing EAST for AJ when he wins the A on the first round is the winning play. (Source data and assumptions available upon request) SUITPLAY cannot calculate these numbers. Jlalls QT4 A98765 is another example. If we can estimate that WEST will duck from Kx all of the time, then his line is best. If not, low to T and then hook is better (as he stated in his solution). So SUITPLAY can help with the calculations, but you still need to apply table feel and player odds to those numbers. fritz

The names on the mouse over appear for about 1/10 of a second as advertised at the table, but then switch colors and names. fritz In other words, I see "Anderson, Goodman , David G and Dunn" sitting at the table for about 1/10 of a second. Their team colors do not match those advertised by the mouse-over before entering the room, but their place at the table does correspond. The names then immediately change to Kurbalija, Diane G, Rees and Devlin with the colors at the correct seats. I do not detect the abnormal names on the bidding box, but maybe I cannot pick that up fast enough.

While you can count the same NUMBER of combinations for which each line of play works, you really need to factor in the likelihood of each particular combination AND the likelihood a particualr player will play a certain card from that holding. Again, in general, each individual 3-2 split is more likely that each individual 4-1 split, which in turn is more likely that each individual 5-0 split. In your scenario, after cancelling out equal splits, you are left comparing a 4-1 split to a 3-2 split. The specific 3-2 split is a priori is more likely than the specific 4-1 split. So "small to 9, then A" wins over "A, small to 9". fritz p.s. I have not fully analyzed this combination, but am replying to this particular question.

I believe the Encylopedia of bridge and other such suit combination tables list: QT9 Axxxxx or QTx Axxxxx Missing the good spot cards, A and low to the Q probably does make sense as you have lost some of your 4-0 splits. So I think we are discussing slightly different problems. fritz

Ben, May I add that low to the T and then CASH A (but leading the Q trying to induce cover) is a slight improvement on your line. Clearly low to T, losing to J when EAST has KJxx, hook the Q back. No question. Your line and my line will pick up KJxx with EAST and WEST as they start the same. Where our lines differ is in the Kx-Jx and x-KJx It seems like maybe since there are equal numbers of these that our two lines are the same. BUT the a priori of Kx-Jx is actually slightly larger than the a priori of x-KJx . So best line: Low to T. If it loses to J, lead Q intending to overtake with A. This is especially nice if the dummy has a small spot and EAST doesn't know you had 6 cards in your hand to start with. fritz Addendum: Reading the other posts in full, I agree it matters how WEST will play with Kx. That might sway the odds towards hooking on the way back. If I think there is a small ( >3% is probably all we need) but real chance that WEST would not play low from Kx, then hook K on the way back if T loses to J in EAST. The slight advantage of the 2-2 vs 3-1 splits would likely be overwhelmed by the table reality of not ducking with Kx.

Haven't worked this out, but low to the T seems right. Cash A if hook loses to J? Will work on later. When listing different combinations to analyze, make sure you count things like WKx --- EJx twice (due to the 2 different spot card choices) and WKJ -- Exx only once. The W and E denote which player has those cards. Although this is further splitting hairs, each individual 2-2 combination is slightly more likely than each individual 3-1, which in turn is more likely than the 4-0 splits (not knowing anything else about the other cards in the other suits BUT knowing that each hand had 13 to start with). No human can do these exact calculations at the table, though. (At least I hope not...) fritz

More later, but there may be some restricted choice on the spots when looking at the plays when EAST wins the first round with the A, when EAST also has a non-zero probability of playing the A from Ax combinations. Depending on his likelihood of playing the A from Ax, there may be a point at which playing for the AJ is wrong. (my gut say he has to be 75% likely to play A from Ax to not play for the AJ when the ACE is won on the first round) Note that if you get all spots on the first round and as you lead to the board on the second round, this likelihood of playing the A from Ax by EAST also comes intio play, but there is no RC on the spots as you have seen them all. fritz

With my established partners, we have a conventional meaning for 3NT by a passed hand in this sequence. It means: "Pard, I missorted/misbid/misclicked, and I do not have a rational way of bidding my hand at this point." We have no planned continuations over this call. I would assume that my unknown partner made this call. I am not sure if it is GCC legal ;) fritz p.s. Your pard could have thought: "Does Nikos think 2♦ is 4 card limit raise or might Nikos think that 3♦ is some form of bergen by a passed hand...uh...hmm...3NT"

Here there was no agreement that 2♦ could show 3. I do not think that is part of SAYC which was your agreement. So no alert. However, I do beleive that many bids that are partnership agreements should be alerted even if "standard" (I self-alert and explain my 15-17 NT range). I agree that if you are wondering about whether to alert or not, click the alert box and fill in the partnership meaning of the bid without them asking (or use hot keys to message the opps if too large to fit in alert box) This may differ from what you hold, but the alert procedure is to make sure your opponents know what your partner knows about your hand when you make a call -- not what you know about your hand. On a side note, I played in a (US) sectional event over the weekend. I forgot that live alerting is brutal -- and so is my ability to sort cards ;>) fritz

My (maybe incorrect) thoughts: 1) I will assume that you get a complete count of the hand as you run your winners, setting up the ending to look like a pointed suit squeeze. In other words, you will have seen all the hearts (if not--see 2). EAST started 2=3=7=1, I will use restricted choice on the spade 2,3,4 to think EAST has the last x. (At the point of decision, WEST will have played 2 of the small spades -- one as a discard, and one as you lead to the board). Therefore, I hook. This is works out to be close to the open spaces argument. I am not concerned about a single HCP and this junky preempt. (may be a psyche) If EAST started 3=2=7=1, I assume he has pitched a spade x, and WEST plays an x as I lead to the board at trick 12. Did EAST look uncomfortable pitching the spade x? I think it is a guess at this point. 2) If someone holds onto the last heart and I cannot figure out who that is, I will be disappointed. If WEST is grasping onto the last heart, then play for the drop. If EAST has the last heart, he also has the last diamond. Hook! Why didn't WEST return a spade? Maybe he thought YOU were out...therefore he didn't want to give you a chance for a finesse when you couldn't take it yourself? fritz

Obviously double makes little sense to anyone posting. There are real live players who double with ANY opening hand. That makes bidding with them very very hard, but that is their "style". There are many long-time players who bid like this. They often do not do well at club games, but that's how they learned to bid, and they will continue to do so. If this is a regular partner, discuss what takeout doubles mean and how this doesn't seem to fit into what you think the partnership bidding should be. If this is not a regular partner, just make note of the bidding style. Maybe they thought of it as a penalty double, holding AKQ of clubs OR maybe they double with all opening counts. Just remember in case you run into them in an INDY. fritz

I will do formal calculations later, but the The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, under suit combinations, states that for AKJT9xx across from x, the best play is to finesse the J. "This line is 4% better than playing off the ace and king." 37% chance of taking all 7 tricks

Mr. Warm: No gripe about dinging the TD for the response of "I am TD and I rule ALL!!" or whatever. That was inappropriate. I said so in my response indirectly. I am just proposing that the TD did ask about playing or not, because not wanting to play would be the main reason for griping about the change. Else gripe after the tournament when the TD's work is done. The player continued to gripe, so TD assumed talk not play. What is the endgame of the complaint about extra boards: Play them or not? If not, then player can be excused. If yes, then play. The discussion during T time does not help the issue. fritz p.s. I am against TDs changing time/board upwards after T starts (unless done a la jtfanclub where a T length is given and won't be exceeded). I also think changing boards/round after T starts is not good, and might not even be possible per uday?. so this may be an issue of someone signing up and the boards/round was changed before start of T..

(I am not a TD..just an occasional player) I don't think the TD is way off here on booting the player. We have a snippet from a player. We do not have all the data from the TD. BUT. from the TDs side: TD was in the middle of directing a tourney. A player was yapping at the TD about the change in number of boards -- which I am not excusing the director for doing and which the TD did not respond to appropriately. However, the TD did ask a good question "You wanna play, or talk?" to which the player continued to talk. The TD, at this point, likely feels there is a player who is upset about the change in number of boards, is yapping instead of playing, and has been asked if she wants to play or talk. She chose to talk. Why would the director continue to have this player in the tournament when the TD would potentially be distractd by a continuing dialog about extra boards? A discussion about this is best done after the tournament. The only reason I can see to complain about the change during the tournament is to get excused. All other such talk is non-productive and takes away from the TD doing the job. fritz

1) Do I think E-W were playing a system whereby a passed hand call of 1♦ to a 1♣ opening means 11+? Not really unless profile/cc has such info. In the absence of such a cc/profile info, I believe the answer of 11+ told you about the hand NOT what the call meant. The movie shows that 1♦ was alerted as "♦" (and 1♣ as "13+"). 2) Did West's call of 3NT seem as if 1♦ meant 11+? Maybe, but many people overbid online for no reason. 3) Was the play of the heart suit influenced by the X? Probably not. 4) Was the lead influenced by the X? Maybe, but perhaps a diamond would be led normally from North, and the heart suit would likely be played as shown. 5) Did the bidding make WEST declarer instead of EAST? maybe. 6) MOST of the 3NT that went down were played by EAST. I don't think an adjustment is needed, UNLESS it can be shown that EW did have the specific agreement of the 1♦ call. fritz

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetchlin.php?id=5691963 Ben will answer soon, I am sure, but grabbing the CLUB Q is okay. If LHO has HEART Q, then you have a no-brainer squeeze. If LHO has HEART Q and you now know RHO has CLUB J, then after cashing heart A, neither can hold 3 more spades. The movie shows you played it correctly at the end, but forgot to watch all the clubs. fritz (edit: there are many inferences from the play of the hand to this point, mnay of which make me think RHO started with 5 clubs, but if you beleive LHO has heart Q, then club Q is a no cost play)

Bearmum gets -.25IMP, which I think was the orignal poster's point on this hand (which originally was posted under interesting bridge hands). Free and I (maybe inappropriately) requested this hand be moved here (but that was addressed very well by Ben above). The general throw in technique is important, but the technical line that was outlined above is just as important, and could be the difference between winning a team match and losing it. fritz now-the technical side ....should the heart ACE be cashed fom hand or should a lead come from the board to the A? should declarer cash a 4th round of trump before leading the heart off the board? Do these things matter?

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak432h32dkj2cak2&s=sqjt95haqdat3cq43]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After opening 1♠ with the South hand, you end up in 6♠, and receive ♣10 as lead. What is your line? Some thoughts on Cherdano's post (assuming no club ruff at trick 1): Any time there is a mirror distribution between the dummy and hand, you should think of a strip and throw in as the technique to play the hand. Sometimes it doesn't make sense on a particular hand, but it should go through your mind. The contract shown could be misplayed for YEARS by beginners. They'd make the hand sometimes, go down sometimes, yet never learn that there is a 100% line. As you can now see, the ♥Q is as good as the ♥4. It's only purpose is to make the opponents lead, allowing a ruff and sluff OR a diamond where you have a 2-way finesse. So the technique is to remove safe suits from the opps, in order to make them lead the one you want. Change the hand a little bit...True beginners/early intermediates should try to answer this one. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak432h32dkj2cak2&s=sqjt95haqdat3cq43]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After opening 1♠ with the South hand, you end up in 6♠, and receive ♣10 as lead. What is your line? (note: Cherdano: I think the player who answered the question meant to say "play 2 MORE rounds of clubs". If the first club is ruffed, then you must hook in hearts and get a count and guess diamonds. If you are haggling over 1 IMP or suggesting exact card play order other than "strip the blacks, throw in with heart", then maybe that should be asked. In that case, I agree with EricK for technical merit, but I would draw trump ending on board, low to heart A, cash last clubs ending on board, lead heart from board. I'd be too chicken to possibly lose a sure slam on an unbid 9 card heart suit by cashing the heart A before drawing trump.)

May I suggest placing this in the BIL thread as a "classic" play-this-hand hand? fritz

Ben, if someone wins the ♥AK, then leds the J, won by EAST/WEST who then returns another heart, you MUST make up your mind too early on which minor suit to play for 4 tricks! (pitch a spade and club on the 2nd and 3rd heart). therefore MUST hook at trick 1. see below. My thoughts: Play the ♥J. If it loses, win any return in hand , including a club return! (or heart on board). Cash one top diamond (do NOT tell me ♦9 shows up..I don't want to hear about it...so I close my eyes and ask if Q showed up), 2 top spades, CLUB A, CLUB K. If the neither minor suit queen has shown up, cash remaining hearts, saving diamonds (unless someone pitches highest black card). Now hook in diamonds, leading the T if the 9 had already shown up. I don't think I would object to playing AK of diamonds first, but on club return, I think you lose than luxury. If ♥J WINS, lead ♥ T, pitching a spade. If ♥T loses and a heart is returned, pitch a club. otherwise play as above. If ♥T wins and someone started with 5 (my least favorite choice of happenings), now I am not sure whether a club hook or diamond hook is best now. Here I think hooking in clubs makes sense as the club K is another entry to hook in diamonds. It also gives me a chance to make 4 club tricks even if first round hook loses. fritz (this is how I see it.)

As I've posted before on the Monty Hall problem set, the choice to change curtains depends on HIS strategy for opening an empty curtain (goat curtain). In the text of the book, I believe they state that the expected length of an opening lead from a longest suit (key assumption which is often NOT appropriate) is 4.5 cards. Therefore, if a 4 card suit is led, then there is some new information. especially if you assume that they would randomly lead from either of 2 4-card suits. (Just like Monty hall would "randomly" choose to open either of 2 unchosen goat curtains....) In the example given, it clearly depends on partnership leading style, or whether a 4 card major would be led first dogmatically, or whether the leader has enough HCP on the auction to try to set up one of his sits, or whether the lead is made to set up partner's suit. I'd play for the club queen with West and get yelled at by partner. fritz

I think this system will lead to wildly unreliable results. Say a pair misdefends a game contract on the first board. That pair may then take wild risks to regain lost IMPs in that round in order to win the 1 VP. This will likely happen every single round because there is likely to be some abnormal result somewhere in the tournament on the first board of each round. Now what you get is more and more shooting -- which can seroiusly change the scores at the other tables through no fault of the players at the non-shooting tables. yuck! fritz

You sure declarer doesn't own the spade 8 in hand or the dummy? If so, on a non-spade lead, maybe leads spade 9-J-A-T (not the worst offense to cover the 9), drives out spade K and runs it as a proven heart double squeeze if a heart isn't returned?? fritz late edit: If declarer (or dummy) has spade 8, maybe leading spade Q to possibly pin J or T is best play..not the 9 as I wrote above.

From www.bridgebase.com/acbl Only GCC conventions are allowed -- Multi, Polish club, etc. are not. Is Polish club (and associated bids) really not GCC? fritz