Expert Opinion and Knowledge Requested

[Winstonm]

I could really use some more knowledgeable input here guys and gals. I don't want to post a hand, as that will cause the wrong kind of debate.

 

Here is the problem. Playing imps with an expert, would you cater to your partner making a careless or less than clear signal about how a game contract could be defeated at the risk of an overtrick?

 

In other words, would you blow the overtrick to cover your partner's ass?

 

I can understand doing this in a cut-around game or with someone below expert class. But if an expert can guide the defense with a clear signal and fails to do so, would you allow for destraction, tiredness, break of concentration or would you assume that play had 0% chance of being right?

 

You can make up you own hand, but something like discarding the Q of a suit when KJxxx is in dummy to make sure partner doesn't underlead the Ace is what I am talking about - a clear and unmistakeable signal.

 

Thanks.

[mike777]

I would assume the expert partner is telling me what I need to know based on her best estimate of the hand. If I know what the defense should be and can ignore her, fine, otherwise I would assume what they are telling me is what they feel I need to know at this point in the hand.

[mikeh]

It has been a long, hot day, so maybe I am being a little slower than usual, but I am not sure I understood the question.

 

I think it was: 1. we are defending a game contract that we can easily hold to no overtricks

2. we see a lie of the cards that will allow us to beat the contract

3. Partner had a chance to tell us that this lie existed and he did not... he may even have played a card that actively implied that it did not

4. If we play for the set, we blow an overtrick

 

Should we play for the set?

 

If partner is at the table, focussed and in the zone and played a card that specifically told us that the needed lie does not exist, trust him.

 

If he merely missed an opportunity to convey information, rather than clearly conveying the desired info, then play him to have made a mistake.

 

I have played a number of very long matches in long events and, especially in those circumstances, but also in more mundane events, I have suddenly realized, after just mechanically playing a card on defence, that I missed the chance to help partner... I can easily relive my emotional reactions as I waited to see if partner would save me.

 

OTOH, when I have carefully told partner that it is 'take your tricks time' with no chance of setting the contract, I don't like partner playing me to have been wrong.

 

The distinction may seem subtle, but it is very real. An unambiguous "I don't have what you want' signal is usually quite different from a failure to send a positive message.

 

The one is like answering 'no' to a question, while the latter is like ignoring the question, leaving the asker in the situation of not knowing if you actually heard it.

 

If you think you are in the former situation, cash out. If more likely than not, in the latter, play for the set.

 

BTW the imp odds are not 10-1 or 12-1, as you might think, because many times the result at the other table, even on hands that appear routine, will be different and the overtrick might have a cost of zero.... at the other table they reached an inferior contract or your partners got caught speeding etc.

[Winstonm]

I think it was: 1. we are defending a game contract that we can easily hold to no overtricks

2. we see a lie of the cards that will allow us to beat the contract

3. Partner had a chance to tell us that this lie existed and he did not... he may even have played a card that actively implied that it did not

4. If we play for the set, we blow an overtrick

 

Exactly right, Mike.

 

Maybe the actual entire hand is necessary:

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sq1074hj104daq10ck74&w=s5ha53dkj97ca10952&e=s63hkq6d8642cj863&s=sakj982h9872d53cq]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

South opened:

1S-X-XX-2C

P P 4S P

P P

 

Opening lead club Ace. Partner played the 8. Signalling system is UDCA.

West reasoned that with the Kxx or KQx of hearts, East would have played the club J instead of an innocuous 8 spot. Leading the heart Ace could blow a trick when East held Q9x. East argued that the heart play was obvious but agreed the club jack would have been better play.

 

On the bidding and dummy, both east and west can visualize the hands. West can place south on something like AKJxx, Kxxx, xxx, Q. East knows that the minimum hand for West would be x, Axxx, Kxxx, Axxx. The lead of the Ace from AQxx would really be a stetch. Knowing that West must surely hold the heart Ace, isn't it imperative for a thinking East to do his best to let partner in on the secret? Isn't the club J somewhat automatic? Maybe it's not a strict SP situation, but surely the club J must be an "unnecessarily high card" - a wake up call?

 

When partner does not give this wakeup call - isn't it realistic to assume he doesn't hold either the K or KQ of hearts? Do you plow blindly on and lead hearts anyway, or do you play a second club and let declarer find his own 10 tricks - and not give him an easy 11?

[mikeh]

This hand falls into the lazy category, rather than the clear 'take your tricks' situation... I agree 100% that, on the auction, east 'should' play the ♣J while the 8 is NOT a clear signal. So I would like to think that switching to the ♥ at trick 2 is marginally better than going passive... but I would admire defenders who got this right more than I would criticize those who get it wrong.

[Free]

What's so difficult about the 8? West is allowed to think, and the only way to get this baby down is with ♥. A real expert partner, your partner should be able to find the ♥ switch after ANY ♣ played, so the 8 already makes it clearer.

 

Btw, if you want you can play absolute suit preference in this case: East promissed 4♣s, so he can show suit preference for every suit including trumps. Then the ♣8 is definetly ♥. And even if you don't, partner also didn't play the ♣6...

[kgr]

scoring indicated is MP. Looking at dummy you expect that most pairs will be in 4S. I would not switch to H if partner had the possibility to ask it and didn't.

[Free]

scoring indicated is MP. Looking at dummy you expect that most pairs will be in 4S. I would not switch to H if partner had the possibility to ask it and didn't.

He didn't play the Jack, we get that. But he also didn't play the 6! So he's clearly not sure what he wants, but if he wouldn't be interested in ♥ he would've played the 6. With ♥AK your partner would ask for a ♥ switch, but hey, you hold one of those...

[mike777]

I guess I am missing something here. The 8 of clubs playing udca clearly asks for the "obvious shift" which in this case is hearts. If my expert partner wants me to find another shift after playing the 8 they are going to have to give me better lessons.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't understand this. Yes, the J is a little better than the 8. But that doesn't make a difference to me. He didn't play the 3! If he *didn't* hold K/KQx in hearts, I expect him to play the 3 from this holding. To me the signal is either high or low, he is supposed to signal as violently as he can afford. The J is right here, but we all get lazy sometimes & save the highest card without calculating that there really is no benefit in saving it. But if holding nothing or Q9x in hearts, it's easy to play the 3 to discourage partner from shifting to H from a dangerous holding, and he knows he has to do it. He didn't play it, clear to shift!

 

I don't understand people suggesting playing the 6 on any other combination either. I would never play the 6 from this holding 3rd hand. Low or as high as you can.

[Winstonm]

Obviously, East does not know West's club holding. In the t.o. double agreements, west could hold 0544, 1444, 1543, 1354...a bunch of standard type holdings. However, unless pard has led the Ace specifically from AQx(x), the Jack is an expendable and worthless card. And East is the possessor of the knowledge that a heart switch is mandatory - isn't it a clear cut duty to make that known as blatantly as possible?

 

 

I happen to agree 100% with MikeH's analysis - the 8 is simply a "lazy" play, somewhat careless. The system of signalling was not OS, so a high card did not guarantee a switch could to hearts could be tolerated, although that would have worked well on this hand. The basic signal agreement in this instance would have been equal honor, with the King in dummy, that the 8 denied holding the Queen.

In essence, the 8 would say...if you have led from Axx, we don't have any more club tricks coming but it would not imply a holding in hearts.

 

So back to the basic question - it's not a question about signalling methods - do you cover for the possibility that an expert partner has made a lazy play or do you trust his play implicitly?

 

I can see the other side of this argument as well, when declarer scores up his +650 instead of +620. Hell, I played the 8. You know I hold the Jack. If I wanted a heart switch I'd have played the Jack! :)

 

I think for the most part...not all but most....agree that the Jack is the maximal play. The question again is: if your expert pard fails to make the maximal play, do you take an inference from that failure or do you take the best shot at beating the contract and ignore his play? Seems to me that at the highest level bridge is a subtle game and not a sledgehammer game - ignoring partner's signals or lack of signal is like beating on a rock with a hammer, while interpreting signals or the lack of a signal is like polishing that stone into a jewel.

[Winstonm]

scoring indicated is MP. Looking at dummy you expect that most pairs will be in 4S. I would not switch to H if partner had the possibility to ask it and didn't.

Thanks. Didn't notice the error. Scoring form changed to IMP.

[Stephen Tu]

think for the most part...not all but most....agree that the Jack is the maximal play. The question again is: if your expert pard fails to make the maximal play, do you take an inference from that failure or do you take the best shot at beating the contract and ignore his play?

 

I really don't like this question combined with this hand as an example. To me, the J is 100% clearly asking to shift to heart, while the 8 is 99.9% clearly asking to shift to heart (I'd wonder why he didn't signal with J, just assume that he was too lazy to figure out whether it costs, knowing the 8 is so clearly readable as not being low). If you don't want a shift, you play the 3! Shifting to heart when he plays the 8 is not ignoring his play, it's following it!

 

I think it's a big mistake to be playing a signalling system where the J says do one thing and the 8 says something different on this holding & layout. You seem to be wanting to do something where you are signalling both your club holding and whether or not you want a heart shift. Where J says you want the heart shift, while 8 says you don't have CQ but don't want heart shift. I don't think this is playable; your signal should be purely attitude, whether you think shift is indicated or not. All the books teach that you should signal encouragement when you have nothing outside & shift would be bad even though you don't have the useful honor in the suit partner led. He might be initially misled but it won't matter & it's better than him shifting. I've never seen any book recommend a subtle signal "discouraging in this suit but also denying a holding in another suit".

 

A better question is whether at IMPs you go for the set (lead heart), even if partner played the encouraging 3, because you can see it's only hope for a set, even though you might give the uptrick.

[dake50]

Switch HK, DK. Now what?

[pclayton]

I don't think East can afford the Jack. Couldn't declarer hold T9x?

 

But back to the original question. If there is a logical lie of the cards that can exist, even though partner signaled otherwise, play for it. Your partner will appreciate your effort, and should forgive you for ignoring a signal.

 

I don't always give 100% clear signals, and I expect my partner to work out hands. They expect the same of me.

[luke warm]

to me the jack asks for an unusual, ie a diamond, shift.. the 8 asks for a heart...

[Winstonm]

to me the jack asks for an unusual, ie a diamond, shift.. the 8 asks for a heart...

Let me guess....you must be from Louisianna. :(

[luke warm]

well... yes... but i got the idea from israel :(

[neilkaz]

On the hand given..I don't hang PD who most definately has at least 4 clubs to choose from. Perhaps his wife called him, perhaps a kid hollered or the phone rang.

 

The difference between -620 and +100 is vastly greater than an OT.

 

Looking at that dummy, and presuming declarer sees that vs passive defence with his hand he must take the double D finesse to pitch his 2nd H (often after trying to squeeze you two with spades), the question is whether he can find that line. But here, declarer has no choice and if you cannot cash 3 H tricks, game looks rather easy to make.

 

So..any PD even true WC ones, may be subject to distractions..etc etc online so try to cash 3 H's after seeing the 8 of C.

 

// neilkaz //

[Winstonm]

On the hand given..I don't hang PD who most definately has at least 4 clubs to choose from. Perhaps his wife called him, perhaps a kid hollered or the phone rang.

 

The difference between -620 and +100 is vastly greater than an OT.

 

Looking at that dummy, and presuming declarer sees that vs passive defence with his hand he must take the double D finesse to pitch his 2nd H (often after trying to squeeze you two with spades), the question is whether he can find that line. But here, declarer has no choice and if you cannot cash 3 H tricks, game looks rather easy to make.

 

So..any PD even true WC ones, may be subject to distractions..etc etc online so try to cash 3 H's after seeing the 8 of C.

 

// neilkaz //

This is great advice and well-reasoned.

 

Question: Would you do the same in live play, i.e., an arena with no distractions?

[pclayton]

Here's the flip side of the same question. I had this come up last night.

 

You are defending a contract, and you see a sure set. You signal pard accordingly, yet pard takes a tact that seemingly lets declarer slip the contract home, if declarer holds hand "a", but leads to multiple undertricks if declarer holds hand "b".

 

How much do you trust pard?

[Winstonm]

Here's the flip side of the same question. I had this come up last night.

 

You are defending a contract, and you see a sure set. You signal pard accordingly, yet pard takes a tact that seemingly lets declarer slip the contract home, if declarer holds hand "a", but leads to multiple undertricks if declarer holds hand "b".

 

How much do you trust pard?

I guess now in retrospect in is not so much a matter of trust - if you don't trust you shouldn't be playing - but a matter of whether or not you believe he is focused. If focused, you play for the multiple set; if not, try to steer back to the sure thing.

 

Your views?