AKQ9xx vs xx

[kgr]

You are in 6♠ after showing good Spades (Bidding started with 3♦-3♥-3♠, which shows a GF in ♠).

You have in ♠: AKQ9xx versus xx in dummy.

You play ♠A and LHO plays the ♠J. You have no problems to go to dummy, nut should not loose a ♠ trick.

Is it best to play for drop or to finesse?:

- If LHO would never falsecard with JTx

- If LHO is good enough to falsecard with JTx

[gwnn]

If LHO is good enough, then it's obviously absurd to change your play.

 

If LHO is not good enough, then you have 2 possibilities:

 

-JT sec

-J

 

But restricted choice argues that the first option, albeit narrowly more likely a priori, is about twice as unlikely (<-this assumes LHO plays at random from JT doubleton). Of course, real true noobs would never play J from JT doubleton, so that reduces the chance of LHO's JT doubleton even more, so you should finesse.

[kenrexford]

Play in a different event if this actually is an issue. Get rid of the riff-raff that cannot make the falsecard.

[karlson]

Agree with Ken.

 

Even beginners ought to see that this is a falsecard that can never cost, so some people might make it without thinking about the exact position.

[Fluffy]

Even beginners ought to see that this is a falsecard that can never cost, so some people might make it without thinking about the exact position.

The beginners you find look extraterrestrials to me.

 

I know at least of a hundred players who have played for more than 20 years who would never ever think of falsecarding with this holding.

 

 

I think against totally unknown opponent the percentage play is to finese but not fully sure.

[karlson]

Even beginners ought to see that this is a falsecard that can never cost, so some people might make it without thinking about the exact position.

The beginners you find look extraterrestrials to me.

 

I know at least of a hundred players who have played for more than 20 years who would never ever think of falsecarding with this holding.

 

 

I think against totally unknown opponent the percentage play is to finese but not fully sure.

Ok, I may have exaggerated B)

 

It may also be that I've been watching beginner juniors a lot lately, who play their cards pretty randomly, just for fun, sometimes.

[Guest Jlall]

Definitely percentage to finesse vs most people.

[foo]

You are in 6♠ after showing good Spades (Bidding started with 3♦-3♥-3♠, which shows a GF in ♠).

You have in ♠: AKQ9xx versus xx in dummy.

You play ♠A and LHO plays the ♠J. You have no problems to go to dummy, but should not loose a ♠ trick.

Is it best to play for drop or to finesse?:

- If LHO would never falsecard with JTx

- If LHO is good enough to falsecard with JTx

Play the odds. Not the opponents. Unless you are very confident of your table feel

xx

+

AKQ9xx

 

The holdings where LHO =can= play the J without RHO playing the T while following are:

J+Txxx 1/14 (02.83%)

Jx+Txx 3/14 (10.17%)

Jxx+Tx 3/14

JT+xxx 1/14

JTx+xx 3/14

JTxx+x 3/14 (actually 8.48%)

 

As one can see, split honors is higher percentage than the falsecard regardless of LHO's skill.

[Guest Jlall]

As one can see, split honors is higher percentage than the falsecard regardless of LHO's skill.

Why do you say things like this?

[foo]

As one can see, split honors is higher percentage than the falsecard regardless of LHO's skill.

Why do you say things like this?

Because I provided the proof to back up the mathematical statement?

 

Playing your opponents to have Falsecarded when the odds don't support it is by definition taking an anti-percentage position. Taking anti-percentage positions is not to be done lightly.

[karlson]

Someday foo will figure out a line that picks up both JTx and Jxx on his left.

[Guest Jlall]

As one can see, split honors is higher percentage than the falsecard regardless of LHO's skill.

Why do you say things like this?

Because I provided the proof to back up the mathematical statement?

 

Playing your opponents to have Falsecarded when the odds don't support it is by definition taking a anti-percentage position. Taking anti-percentage positions is not to be done lightly.

lol ron you are a complete joke i cannot even reply to this with a straight face. i'll let someone else tell you why you are wrong (karlson is no doubt too subtle for you).

[foo]

Someday foo will figure out a line that picks up both JTx and Jxx on his left.

Yes, that's called "playing for the drop". Your point?

 

All I said is that one should not assume that the opponents have Falscarded in this situation.

The correct default assumption is that the opponents are playing cards that they must play.

 

So when LHO sees xx in Dummy and you play the A from the closed hand with them putting one of the 2 missing honors on the table as 2nd hand, you should assume they are playing cards they must play. Not that they choose to play.

 

For you to assume that LHO is acting like they know you are holding AKQ9xx in the closed hand is "taking a position". Not playing the percentages.

 

Such a Falsecard is only safe or logical for 1 specific holding: JTx+xx.

That's only 10.17/44.65= 22.78% of LHO's possible holdings.

Playing the J 2nd hand from Jx or Jxx when one can not see any other honors is not logical since it could cost the defence (and playing J under the A 2nd hand when holding JTxx would be ludicrous).

Therefore it is anti-percentage to assume that LHO deliberately threw the J under the A.

They are more likely to have had no choice but to play an honor here.

 

If one can, one should get more of a count on the hand before committing oneself in this suit, but you do not always have that luxury.

 

EDIT: and Justin, the name is "Foo". Not whatever hrothgar decides to call me.

[Guest Jlall]

ok foo, here is a hint.

 

LHO is FOURTH hand since AKQ9xx is in YOUR HAND. The question is what do you do when you play small to the ace and LHO aka FOURTH hand plays the jack or the ten.

[foo]

ok foo, here is a hint.

 

LHO is FOURTH hand since AKQ9xx is in YOUR HAND. The question is what do you do when you play small to the ace and LHO aka FOURTH hand plays the jack or the ten.

The OP's description is

xx in Dummy

AKQ9xx in hand

played the A from hand

...and LHO popped the J.

 

"You have in ♠: AKQ9xx versus xx in dummy. You play ♠A and LHO plays the ♠J."

 

Thus:

.......xx...........

J??.........x???..

....AKQ9xx.....

[Guest Jlall]

ok foo so wtf do you think Jxx/Jx are relevant holdings for LHO????? AFTER THEY PLAY THE JACK IF YOU FINESSE AGAINST THE TEN IT WILL WIN AND IF YOU PLAY FOR THE DROP IT WILL WIN. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HE HAS Jxx OR Jx. THE ONLY RELEVANT HOLDINGS ARE.....

 

JTx

JT

J

 

IF LHO CAN FALSECARD THE JACK FROM JTx OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD PLAY FOR THE DROP. IF LHO CANNOT FALSECARD THE JACK FROM JTx THEN THAT IS NOT A POSSIBLE HOLDING SO THE POSSIBLE HOLDINGS BECOME:

 

JT

J

 

OF THESE STIFF JACK IS MORE LIKELY BECAUSE OF RESTRICTED CHOICE. SO IF LHO CANNOT FALSECARD FROM JTx YOU SHOULD TAKE A FINESSE. IF THEY CAN PLAY THE JACK FROM JTx YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE A FINESSE.

 

DO

YOU

UNDER

STAND

FINALLY

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

[foo]

Calm down. You sound like you are about to have a stroke.

 

All the physically possible holdings for LHO given the play so far are relevant because they are the basis for the rest of the calculations as to what the percentage play is.

Not to mention the opponents =can't= lie outside those bounds.

 

=Then= we apply logic to the possible holdings to reduce them to the probable actions.

 

Given the percentages, if Declarer must commit themselves on the basis of this information alone, they should play for split honors. The falsecard is only a 23% chance and therefore ~4.4:1 odds against.

 

As I said, if one can get a better count on the hand before committing oneself, one should.

[Guest Jlall]

All the physically possible holdings for LHO given the play so far are relevant because they are the basis for the rest of the calculations as to what the percentage play is.

Not to mention the opponents =can't= lie outside those bounds.

 

=Then= we apply logic to the possible holdings to reduce them to the probable actions.

 

Given the percentages, if Declarer must commit themselves on the basis of this information alone, they should play for split honors. The falsecard is only a 23% chance and therefore ~4.4:1 odds against.

 

As I said, if one can get a better count on the hand before committing oneself, one should.

lol. You are just too hopeless for words. Good luck.

[benlessard]

1- Despite being an automatic falsecard i think that the average club will not find this falsecard and even in a "A" field some players will miss it.

 

So in a club against unknown opps ill finesse.

 

In a stronger field against unknown opps its tougher.

 

 

1- most weak/average player that will find the falsecard will do it with the J from JTx and rarely the T from JTx.

 

2-What LHO a safe lead ? Often in slam they will lead trumps holding JTx instead of making a risky lead.

 

3- If you play for the drop and it failed can you make a trump reduction ?

 

4- since there is a slight tendency to play J instead of T from JT i think that at higher level ill play for the drop.

 

Playing the J from JT or from JTx jsut seems a higher percentage then a stiff J.

 

If LHO had played the T i would have finesse against all except the tops opponents.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

as was already said, it depends, but I would

finesse.

 

Personnally I would not find the falsecard card in

a flash, so that the Jack or the ten would pop

up on the table in a smooth way.

Of course I know, why it is a matadory falsecard,

but I currently dont have this falscards at my possesion,

at least not yet.

So unless you play against real expert go for the finesse.

 

And even if you loose, you may earn their respect,

because you demonstrated, that you know about

restricted choice, it may help in later boards.

Of course if you dont fail for the false card, you win their

respect too ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

And even if you loose, you may earn their respect,

because you demonstrated, that you know about restricted

choice.

Or maybe you earn their "look at this dufus who fell for it" thought. :)

[P_Marlowe]

And even if you loose, you may earn their respect,

because you demonstrated, that you know about restricted

choice.

Or maybe you earn their "look at this dufus who fell for it" thought. :)

this may help as well ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

And even if you loose, you may earn their respect,

because you demonstrated, that you know about restricted

choice.

Or maybe you earn their "look at this dufus who fell for it" thought. :)

haha, i always feel that way when they hook after this happens. I find it insulting, even though I know it's not (they don't know better).

[Fluffy]

falsecard percentage with mathematical proof?, sounds like military inteligence :(

[gwnn]

falsecard percentage with mathematical proof?, sounds like military inteligence :(

with the patriot act in action, you can't tell the TD if LHO peeks into your cards I think