New Day

[H_KARLUK]

If anyone says "aye" can give the reason with a fine sample please?

 

Thanks

Hamdi

[Finch]

I'm not sure what you hoping to gain with this poll.

 

Examples of hands where the defence have to unblock their high cards are

common, you see them regularly at the table (maybe once every 100 boards or so)

 

Underruffs come up in books/columns occasionally but I've never seen a genuine one in real life.

[H_KARLUK]

OK so what's wrong to refresh here?

[ASkolnick]

1) Unblock high cards is so you are not the one thrown in and end played.

 

2) Underruffs are much rarer - Not specific example but here is a general reason.

 

Any card you throw would be worse. Essentially you are squeezed in 2 suits and the only appropriate "discard" is a trump.

[han]

Aye.

[ArtK78]

I had one come up the other day.

 

I held KJx of diamonds and Q98x of spades. The contract was 3NT, and my LHO was declarer. Midway through the hand declarer cashed the ♦A. Later, on the run of the club suit, when I was down to all diamonds and spades, I had to pitch a diamond. If I pitched the ♦J, I could be thrown in with a diamond to play away from my spade holding. So, I had to pitch the ♦K and keep the ♦J. Partner had the ♦Q and a heart winner to beat the contract.

 

If the play had gone a little differently, so that I had to make the pitch prior to declarer cashing the ♦A, I would have to play the ♦K under the ♦A to avoid the endplay.

 

At the other table, my teammate made 3NT when my hand did not unblock the ♦K.

[Free]

Aye

 

easy example: playing 3NT you have Kx, dummy has QTxxxx and your partner needs an entry (and some more specs ofcourse, but it depends too much on the hand). RHO leads the Ace, you unblock the K, and partner with Jxx gets his entry.

[rogerclee]

No, I don't believe it, how can you throw a high card or trump away, they are the ones that take the tricks!!

[kenrexford]

I actually had a funny one, sort of, come up the other day.

 

Partner's side suit was established, but I had no means to gain entry to his hand. I did, however, have an entry myself (an Ace) and the KQx in a suit where dummy held AJ10x. So, I opted to "sacrifice" my Queen into the AJxx to gain an "entry to partner's King," a classic coup.

 

The funny thing was, obviously, that I actually held the King. But, Declarer (a good player) of course ducked my Queen, which allowed me to cash my side Ace and exit, avoiding the endplay at trick 11.

[H_KARLUK]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=s1043hdkj1032ckj1082&w=saq92ha73d54cq976&e=s765hkqj96daq6c54&s=skj8h108542d987ca3]399|300|Scoring: XIMP

Say after a lively auction EW reached 4♥.[/hv]

 

Thanks rogerclee , Posted on Nov 5 2008, 11:50 PM

No, I don't believe it, how can you throw a high card or trump away, they are the ones that take the tricks!!

 

how abt this one?

 

contract 4 ♥

Let South starts ♣A then low.

North shifts ♦ by ten.

Finesse holds, a small ♥ towards table. South plays 8.

♥Ace won.

Declarer plays another trump, used his master card.

East continued with ♦ A,ruffed to another ♦

♣ from table.

 

Time to wake up ;)

Declarer ruffs high there are 2 options which decides the contracts fate:

If South underruffs and unblocks ♠ KJ then there is no thrown in play. North's ♠ ten is enough to set the game.

[kenrexford]

I think there is a difference between getting out of the way of partner's winner and actually throwing away what is the only winner because winning would be inconvenient. The classic example of the latter is throwing a future winner into dummy to prematurely kill dummy's entry.

[rogerclee]

I still don't believe you, please stop trying to trick me...

[han]

Rogerclee you suck! ;)

[655321]

Naturally, in events where psyching is banned, defenders must not play a higher card than necessary to win the trick, nor may they unblock their honors lest declarer be deceived.

[kenrexford]

Naturally, in events where psyching is banned, defenders must not play a higher card than necessary to win the trick, nor may they unblock their honors lest declarer be deceived.

A local lady in the 100+ category (age) gave me an accusatorial glare when I played the K from KQx as Declarer under her Ace, causing her to not continue the suit for her partner to ruff. She asked her partner if that was allowed. I agreed with her that it just did not seem proper that the rules allowed it.

[H_KARLUK]

I do not see any infraction.

 

So are defenders expected not to count more and produce best defence? Maybe "false carding" and "deceptive card play manouvres" also shld not allow?

 

Did any one call TD, what is ruled and were there Appeals Committee’s decision in final?

 

I hope it's simply my language barrier. (English is not my native lingo, srry)

 

Thanks

Hamdi

[kenrexford]

I do not see any infraction.

 

So are defenders expected not to count more and produce best defence? Maybe "false carding" and "deceptive card play manouvres" also shld not allow?

 

Did any one call TD, what is ruled and were there Appeals Committee’s decision in final?

 

I hope it's simply my language barrier. (English is not my native lingo, srry)

 

Thanks

Hamdi

I was punished by the committee with two shameful glares and a barely repressed giggle.

[H_KARLUK]

Frankly speaking I am very sorry for that.

 

I would like to analyse such a decision "if" issued on web.

 

Good luck on the rest.

[helene_t]

It's only because they know that you are a lawyer that you got away with it so cheaply, Ken.

[kenrexford]

The original decision by the TD was to punish my LHO, but that came before the game started when she allowed LHO to buy the entry. At this point, play had resumed, and thus I had options. When this second infraction occurred, the TD thought that perhaps I had taken inference from the purchase of the entry, but ruled that this was an allowed inference. LHO still felt injured, with which I technically agreed. However, the ruling at the table was that the result stands, as a compensation for the board before where 2♠ only made 9 tricks despite 28 combined HCP.

 

The committee was an informal committee of smokers, who took no action other than to note that the field ended up punished when this pair actually won the event last week. Hence, equity rules applied at this point.