Nunes play in 4S

[Cascade]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sq9752h964dk65c42&w=sa83hqjt2dqj2c985&e=sj4hk873dat843ct7&s=skt6ha5d97cakqj63]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     Pass  Pass  1♣

 Pass  1♥    Pass  2♠

 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

HQ H6 H3 H5

H2 H4 HK HA

SK SA S2 S4

HJ H9 H8 ST

S6 S3 SQ SJ

S9 D3 D7 S8

 

Why is this play best?

 

Superficially to me it seems better to finesse for the jack on the second round of trumps.

 

There must be something to this play as Jack (computer program) makes the same play. Jack also makes a similar play if the ♠K is ducked and a second spade is led towards the queen. Jack goes with the queen.

 

It seems curious to ruff with the ♠10 if you are intending to drop the jack offside next.

 

Is it also clear to start the spades with the king?

[Cascade]

I forgot to mention:

 

Italy v Netherlands Bermuda Bowl round 16 board 9.

[matmat]

mb added chance of long clubs with the long spade... i.e. if jack doesn't drop can play off 4 rounds of clubs anyway, pitching diamonds?

[Finch]

If a spade finesse loses, and East switches to a club, I'm in dire trouble - if I win and cash clubs, they can ruff the third or fourth round round; if I play a diamond up to try and draw trumps they play a second club and I'm cut off from hand.

 

Playing spades from the top makes every time East has the Jack, and every time West has both the jack and the ace of diamonds; finessing makes every time West has the jack. So from the top is strictly better (even if you include 4-1 breaks I think).

 

Also from the play to date I would have assumed the ace of diamonds is onside (otherwise opponents could have just cashed out for one off).

 

As for whether the king from hand is right, I don't know... but I do know that you want the first round to be taken by the opponents, so it feels psychologically better.

[Cascade]

Trick one was ducked and then a spade was taken at trick three. So if we get the spade jack wrong then we are odds on to go off losing a further spade and the ace of diamonds. Only if the spade jack is with 4 or more clubs can we make.

[matmat]

this was nonsense, thus i removed it.

[Fluffy]

maybe to avoid more downs, or maybe he had a 2 finger signal on his partner's arm, who knows :)

[Cascade]

maybe to avoid more downs, or maybe he had a 2 finger signal on his partner's arm, who knows :)

I doubt there were any finger signals or the like ...

 

as I mentioned above Jack plays the hand the same way - well if you force Jack to start the trumps with the King then next it plays to the queen.

 

The small chance of making if the jack does not fall doesn't seem to compensate the lost chance of finessing for the jack. The best I can come up with is that the chance of making is small so we are trying to limit undertricks but I am not at all sure about that.

[Fluffy]

I really don't see it either Wayne, only if it is to avoid undertricks. Its to early for misscounting his losers.

 

Did you see it 'live'?, how much did he think?

[cherdano]

Maybe Nunes reasoned that it is not likely that West has ♠AJx ♥QJxx ♦A and passes over 1♣?

 

♠K is the logical play in the suit assuming you have to ruff a heart, isn't it?

[sathyab]

Also from the play to date I would have assumed the ace of diamonds is onside (otherwise opponents could have just cashed out for one off).

 

The problem I think is that the play in hearts in consistent with declarer holding either two or three hearts. So even if West does switch to a Diamond, realizing that they need at least one trick, they need to switch back to a heart if declarer has a stiff Diamond, as neither defender can be sure that declarer simply won't pull trumps and claim when he gets in.

[jdeegan]

:) Feel of the table, my friends. Did LHO huddle when the ♠ king was played? What would LHO's problem have been if he held AJx? As far as ruffing with the ♠ 10, why not? All it meant was that he had not made up his mind how to play the spades yet. When he led the ♠ 6 toward the table, he got one more read, this time from both opponents. Bridge is not poker, but it is a game of tells and psychology. Watch and learn.

[BillHiggin]

I really don't see it either Wayne, only if it is to avoid undertricks. Its to early for misscounting his losers.

 

Did you see it 'live'?, how much did he think?

My recollection of the tempo - reasonable but not excessive pause at trick one, completely in tempo up to the drop of the ♠J, and then the obvious claim. The play to the second round of trumps was quick enough that none of the commentators had a real chance to suggest he could get it right (the possibility of getting it wrong was mentioned).

[cherdano]

Also from the play to date I would have assumed the ace of diamonds is onside (otherwise opponents could have just cashed out for one off).

 

The problem I think is that the play in hearts in consistent with declarer holding either two or three hearts. So even if West does switch to a Diamond, realizing that they need at least one trick, they need to switch back to a heart if declarer has a stiff Diamond, as neither defender can be sure that declarer simply won't pull trumps and claim when he gets in.

I don't follow. If West leads ♦Q, and it wins, he is getting a diamond count signal from partner and knows whether a second diamond is cashing. If declarer covers and partner wins, he will know my heart count and know whether a second heart is cashing.

[Cascade]

I really don't see it either Wayne, only if it is to avoid undertricks. Its to early for misscounting his losers.

 

Did you see it 'live'?, how much did he think?

My recollection of the tempo - reasonable but not excessive pause at trick one, completely in tempo up to the drop of the ♠J, and then the obvious claim. The play to the second round of trumps was quick enough that none of the commentators had a real chance to suggest he could get it right (the possibility of getting it wrong was mentioned).

My recollection is that the critical trick was played quickly. Of course there could have been lags in the broadcast that hid the real tempo.

[sathyab]

Also from the play to date I would have assumed the ace of diamonds is onside (otherwise opponents could have just cashed out for one off).

 

The problem I think is that the play in hearts in consistent with declarer holding either two or three hearts. So even if West does switch to a Diamond, realizing that they need at least one trick, they need to switch back to a heart if declarer has a stiff Diamond, as neither defender can be sure that declarer simply won't pull trumps and claim when he gets in.

I don't follow. If West leads ♦Q, and it wins, he is getting a diamond count signal from partner and knows whether a second diamond is cashing. If declarer covers and partner wins, he will know my heart count and know whether a second heart is cashing.

I was just saying that the defense must not only switch to a Diamond when they get in with the Ace of spades, but they must then try to cash whichever red suit trick they can determine will cash next. If it wasn't clear that they must switch to a Diamond, may be it won't be clear that they need to switch back to hearts or continue Diamonds. Hope it's clear now.

[Onno]

I really don't see it either Wayne, only if it is to avoid undertricks. Its to early for misscounting his losers.

 

Did you see it 'live'?, how much did he think?

My recollection of the tempo - reasonable but not excessive pause at trick one, completely in tempo up to the drop of the ♠J, and then the obvious claim. The play to the second round of trumps was quick enough that none of the commentators had a real chance to suggest he could get it right (the possibility of getting it wrong was mentioned).

My recollection is that the critical trick was played quickly. Of course there could have been lags in the broadcast that hid the real tempo.

Just discussed this hand with West (Simon de Wijs). He got the explanation that Nunes held 19+ so he automatically placed ♦A with declarer. (Of course Nunes' hand is worth 19+ here).

 

Simon took ♠A in tempo. When he played the third heart, Muller threw his highest remaining, signalling ♦A, and it was clear that Nunes noted that.

 

The only explanation Simon could come up with why Nunes dropped ♠J, is that Simon would probably have taken more time to think over the position if he had held ♠AJx. In that case he might have considered that Nunes wouldn't have led ♠K without the ten, and thus that his ♠J was doomed, and thus that ducking ♠A (and then locking him in dummy with a heart ruff) would be an option. You might defend that way with AJx QJxx Qxxx xx for instance. It will take some time. So the fact that Simon took ♠A in tempo might have guided Nunes.

 

Of course he blames himself for not asking Nunes why he played for the drop after the match.

[ulven]

I stumbled upon this thread today and as Wayne posed an honest question, I've checked with Fulvio.

 

He didn't see the hand played out because he left for the restroom after putting the dummy down and when he came back, everybody was rolling their thumbs waiting for him. Claudio brought up the hand himself after the match:

 

"He told me that to play spade to the queen or to the 9 is very close to be the same (considering he has to find the spades 3-2) . But if the jack doesnt appear he has also the chance that who take the trick doesnt play diamond because he showed 19-20 balanced . And playing in this way he can save 1 trick if the jack is after the queen."

 

Fluffy: To make jokes (I presume it is a joke) about cheating is VERY inappropiate. It's serious business and doesn't belong her. Period. I think you should offer an apology in this thread.

 

Any other questions about Fantoni-Nunes actions may be forwarded to me and I'll attempt to get clarification, if I deem the motive of good intention.

 

/Ulf

[cherdano]

"He told me that to play spade to the queen or to the 9 is very close to be the same (considering he has to find the spades 3-2) . But if the jack doesnt appear he has also the chance that who take the trick doesnt play diamond because he showed 19-20 balanced . And playing in this way he can save 1 trick if the jack is after the queen."

Not sure what Nunes meant here, given that he needs spades 3-2 the odds are twice as good to pick up the suit if he plays the 9 than if he plays the queen. Two down or one down is a very small difference in an aggressive game white at IMPs.

Unless I am missing s.th., he would need the odds of the one with ♠Jxx

- either having 4 clubs, or

- not ruffing clubs in time and switch to a diamond

to be pretty close to 50%.

 

I admit I still don't understand his line.

 

Thanks for forwarding the question, Ulf.

[lamford]

I think that Nunes made a fine play, and it is no accident that he and Fantoni finished top of the Butler results for the Round Robin.

 

If we move forward to the critical moment, we are comparing AJx with West and xx with East with Axx with West and Jx with East. (On all other lines we cannot catch the jack of spades). There are three possible combinations of each (for West):

a) AJ3, AJ4, AJ8

<_< A83 A84 A43

Note that we cannot argue restricted choice here. West had no choice but to win the king with the ace, and we can apply "dim-light" theory to the small cards, so that it does not matter what they are, or which have been played to date. So, at the point of the critical guess, both lines would be exactly equal. Yes, it is surprising but I think it is right.

 

Except, of course, that we have the "free" extra chance that the person with the jack of spades also has 4 clubs, provided the spades are 3-2. I am therefore not surprised in the least that Jack, the program, played the QS - it is clearly the right play. Frances' point about a club return leading to an extra one off is valid, but only a minor one.

 

That Fluffy should suggest any impropriety is indeed inappropriate. And I am surprised that others have not commented on the fact that the line was clearly best.

[cherdano]

Oh, indeed my math was wrong....

 

AJx vs Axx is 50-50, even I can count this when I am awake.

[lamford]

No, your maths was not wrong; I have now changed my view, when I consulted my previous analysis of this combination some time ago. West should duck exactly half the time from Axx, and win all the time from AJx, which would then make the finesse twice as good again. It is, in theory, a "zero-sum" game, but in practice West will win (or think of winning) much of the time. The question then is how often that is, and is the extra chance of 4 clubs in the same hand as the jack of spades enough to tilt the odds.

 

Clearly Nunes thought West would give the KS a look enough of the time to make his line right; I agree in practice he is right.