the hog Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 My Maths is not good enough to work out all the permutations. What is the best line on this hand? [hv=n=s9xxhajxxdkqxcjxx&s=saktxhkxxdaxcakqx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The contract is 6N. Low C is led. My plan was to cash 2 top S to see if a doubleton honor dropped. If not to eventually take the H hook, or possibly a throw in. An expert to whom I showed the hand suggested that if both opps follow to 2 rounds of S, the odds have changed significantly and I might be better off to play for S 3-3. I would be interested if someone could mathematically work out the best line. Most lines work. At the other table, the declarer "safety played" the H suit - A, K and low to the J. I would say that this has to be a greatly inferior line to others suggested. Fwiw, most lines work - Jx of S drops, and H are 3-3 with Qxx off side. Another question: Without the T and 9 of S, I would suggest ducking a S at trick 2 and then playing for 3-3 S or the Major suit squeeze to eventuate. Any comments? Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 The problem is even more complex that it seems! First, here applies some sort of restricted choice: West led a ♣, if he had a blank hand he could have led any suit, but he has decided to lead ♣ so he is favourite for having major suits honors. Not only that, but if he had 3=4=3=3 blank he owudl ahve led surelly ♥, and probably ♥ if he had 44 with 4♥, that makes him not likelly to hold 4♥ (improves the ♥3-3 chance) It is too complex to calculate, and even from teh bidding, mayeb the restricted choice doesn´t apply, but if it does I´ll aproximate my line: Play a ♥ to the J and hope for ♥3-3 or major suit squeeze. 62.5% of finese (applying restricted choice) about 40% of ♥3-3 (again restricted choice) and major suit squeeze will work a bit less of half the times ♠ aren´t 3-3 with honors divided, I think around 40% also. Is there a real need of more calculating? I don´t see any other line that mixes 3 real porcentages, so I don´t think any more calculating is neccesary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Thanks Ben, thorough analysis. Based on your Maths I guess the H play is correct. CheersRon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Playing AK and then ♥ to the JACK is a great line. First, it fails only if EAST has Qxxx or Qxxxx (or Qxxxxx) of ♥. So the odds of success are readily calculated to be ~78% (if you ignore the 6-0, because you can change lines then). Having played ♠AK, and ♥K then led small ♥ toward the ♥J, if second hand shows out (Qxxxx offside) then you can rise with ♥A and revert to ♠ in the hope that ♠ are 3-3 with the winning ♠ in the ♥ void hand. Only a tiny extra hand, and relies on misdefence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Best percentage line imho: K♥, A♥ (this order, because you may need 1 more entry to play ♠). If E have 5+♥, than you make J♥. If W have 5+♥, low ♠ to ♠10 finesse and play for 3-3 or J/Qx in E. If E put ♠ J or Q, take, go to dummy with ♣J and low ♠ again from dummy, finesse if not ♠J/Q by E. The beauty of this line is percentages are commulative, because if bad ♥ break, you can stiil try ♠ later. Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 hi again! It seems nobody agress with my restricted choice deductions, so even without them: rectifyinge count in ♠ is worthless, the ONLY squeeze you can manage after that is the show-up squeeze, since on the other cases finding the ♥Q with the ♠ is just as good as the finese. So if you are havin to rectify the count, you can do it trying a 50% finese in ♥ or a 24% in ♠. even more! when you try ♥ finese you can also cash 1 top ♠ ans see if a honor falls, either having stiff J/Q, or QJ bare. And pretty good lines when any breaks 6-0 as well. also you can try for a stiff ♥Q behind, you will come up with: [hv=n=s9xhajxdkqxcjx&s=sk10xhxxdaxcakx]133|200|[/hv] Now a ♥ to the J that will lose, opponents may break comunication on either major, but you may play your last minor winner from the hand without the entry, so squeeze still works. No restricted choice you say?, anyway, I am combining these chances: ♥Q bare= 1%♥ finese= 50%♠honor drops=8%♥ 3-3= 37.5%♠+♥ squeeze = about 27% (it doesn´t apply when ♥=3-3 on the calculating, assuming ♥4-2 or worse is about 40%) My calculator says it is 78% :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 It seems nobody agress with my restricted choice deductions, so even without them: Actually, I am firm believer in restricted choice applying to the opening lead. The fact that WEST made a safe club lead increases the chances that the ♥Q will be onsides. So both of my first lines are actually higher than the precentages quoted, since both fall back on the ♥Q being onside. It will, however, affect both of those lines roughly equally, so can be ignored from a practical point of view. Now, for some of your other comments...rectifyinge count in ♠ is worthless, the ONLY squeeze you can manage after that is the show-up squeeze, since on the other cases finding the ♥Q with the ♠ is just as good as the finese. Well, "rectifying" the count in ♠ makes the slam if ♠ are 3-3, or if in ducking a ♠ to the ten to rectify, you catch EAST with Jx or Qx of spades. The total odds of either of these (3-3 or doubleton/singleton spade honor on sides) is a respectiful 52.5%. So to suggest that it is "worthless" is a horrible understatement. It actually has slightly better odds than cashing the AK and hoping to catch the an honor. After that fails, you can still try cashing the high ♥ from hand for the unlikely event that EAST has the stiff ♥Q (West having stiff helps, but falls into the same odds as hook), which as you said is about 1.2%. Failing that you can fall back on the ♥ hook, with the added benefit if WEST has the long spade, you have a showup squeeze that will allow you to make if EAST happens to have doubleton ♥Q, of if he has three ♥ to Q and for reason know to him only, thinks he has to hold onto long ♦ to the JACK and figures you might hook the ♥ anyway so he pitches one (a pseudo squeeze). Now for your odds.... ♥Q bare= 1% ♥ finese= 50%♠honor drops=8%♥ 3-3= 37.5%♠+♥ squeeze = about 27% (it doesn´t apply when ♥=3-3 on the calculating, assuming ♥4-2 or worse is about 40%) Well, technically, the odds of 3-3 split is 35.528, not 37.5, and we probabably should round bare queen off to 1.2. The odds of dropping a spade honor is 8.1. But these changes have little effect on your estimate of 78%, I calculate it as 78.75% For those who need to see how this is done, this is how you combine the chances.... Odds of dropping spade honor, 8.1, that leave 91.9% remaining. Try to drop the singleton ♥Q, is 1.2%x91.9%, so that improve your odds of making to 9.01%. Of the roughly 91% of the time the first two ploys fail, you will make on the ♥ hook (this will be actually higher because restricted choice will apply, see above, but we will ignore for this calculation).. so 0.5x.90 which is 45.5% additional, raising the odds to 54.5%. Now the chance of 3-3 split is 35.5%, but this only helps after all the above feails, so this is 35.5 of the reaming 45.5% when earlier lines fail, this raises the odds to 70.67% of success. Now, you have your squeeze possibility. If the hand holding 4+♥ also happens to hold either 4+♠ or QJx of ♠, he will be squeezed. I calculate the odds of this as being, 27.59%, raising the odds of this line to 78.8%. Of course to be technical, the line of playing off two top hearts, will include cashing one ♠, so you get that 8.1% chance as well, and if you happen to catch a 6-0 ♥ split, you can chance horses after the first round of ♥. So the minimum odds of that line are, 79.7. And again, both these lines have a better chance because of restricted choice as it relates to the opening lead, but what ever effect it has on the odds, it will affect both nearly equally. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 thx Ben!, seems you are right as usual. 3 more things: -I totally missed the ♠Hx on east option, that´s why I called worthless that play, thx for correcting. -I calculated all percentages 'analogically', I mean, jsut asked my mind what % would i give to them (except 3-3 wich somehow I forgot exact %), amazing I was that near! -I am a strongly beleiver on restricted choice with major honors, but as I suggested on my first reply, I also beleive there is something as well to the 3-3 ♥ increase by the ♣ lead, meaning that, of course this argument is MUCH weaker that the last, but I still believe there i some point of no ♥ lead denying a 3=4=3=3 and maybe half the times a X=4=X=4 balanced, of course when ♥Q offside, but we are suposing that card offside, else the contract makes on both lines. Calculating it becomes impossible because it depends on the opponent style and skill (not to tell about bidding, wich I am suposing to be only NT&NT ;) ). so Ben, do you think I am wrong about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 thx Ben!, seems you are right as usual. 3 more things: -I totally missed the ♠Hx on east option, that´s why I called worthless that play, thx for correcting. -I calculated all percentages 'analogically', I mean, jsut asked my mind what % would i give to them (except 3-3 wich somehow I forgot exact %), amazing I was that near! -I am a strongly beleiver on restricted choice with major honors, but as I suggested on my first reply, I also beleive there is something as well to the 3-3 ♥ increase by the ♣ lead, meaning that, of course this argument is MUCH weaker that the last, but I still believe there i some point of no ♥ lead denying a 3=4=3=3 and maybe half the times a X=4=X=4 balanced, of course when ♥Q offside, but we are suposing that card offside, else the contract makes on both lines. Calculating it becomes impossible because it depends on the opponent style and skill (not to tell about bidding, wich I am suposing to be only NT&NT ;) ). so Ben, do you think I am wrong about this? Well, one of my favorite hands of all time (matchpoints) was a hnad where I "incorrectly" applied restricted choice to the opening lead (it actually worked out however) and I made two more tricks the entire 27 table field. Maybe I will post it. But what do I think? I am not so sure about the 3-3 ♥, but I too am a strong believer in drawing conclusions from what was led, and specifically what was not led. Restricted choice does apply to the opening lead. However, one has to take inot account the bidding. I assume south opened 1♣, so a ♣ lead would not have been that "attractive", and I assume north did bid a ♥ and some people would prefer to lead through ♥ than up to ♣'s. Not hearing the auction, makes all this somewhat academic, but I think the calculated odds are actually, under estimates, because I believe there is greater than 1/2 and less than a 2/3 chance WEST is looking at the ♥Q instead of 50/50, and all these lines make when WEST has the ♥Q. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 It seems nobody agress with my restricted choice deductions, so even without them: Actually, I am firm believer in restricted choice applying to the opening lead. The fact that WEST made a safe club lead increases the chances that the ♥Q will be onsides. snipped Ben Interesting topic re whether the lead introduces an element of restricted choice. Imho this is an element too difficult to guage, as the strength of your opponents has to play a part. Now you are reduced to making judgement calls. What I mean by this is the following. I am sure we have all played against weak opponents who are terrified of making an attacking lead, (what I mean is from Q or K), against a slam. Sometimes these opponents are not good enough to read the bidding. eg you are on lead after the following auction (1S) P (2C) P(3S) P (4N) P(5D) P (6S) holding Kxx T98x Kxxx KJYou have a possible S trick, best shot here is to lead a D before the losers go away on the C - your C cards are dust!We all know players who would NEVER lead a D, but would lead the "safe" H How do you take these intangibles into account if you are going to give credence to restricted choice on the opening lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 24, 2004 Report Share Posted April 24, 2004 It seems nobody agress with my restricted choice deductions, so even without them: Actually, I am firm believer in restricted choice applying to the opening lead. The fact that WEST made a safe club lead increases the chances that the ♥Q will be onsides. snipped Ben Interesting topic re whether the lead introduces an element of restricted choice. Imho this is an element too difficult to guage, as the strength of your opponents has to play a part. Now you are reduced to making judgement calls. What I mean by this is the following. I am sure we have all played against weak opponents who are terrified of making an attacking lead, (what I mean is from Q or K), against a slam. Sometimes these opponents are not good enough to read the bidding. eg you are on lead after the following auction (1S) P (2C) P(3S) P (4N) P(5D) P (6S) holding Kxx T98x Kxxx KJYou have a possible S trick, best shot here is to lead a D before the losers go away on the C - your C cards are dust!We all know players who would NEVER lead a D, but would lead the "safe" H How do you take these intangibles into account if you are going to give credence to restricted choice on the opening lead? Hi Ron, Of course "restricted choice" applies to the quality of your opponents. But this is also true of the normal situation as well. If you play against someone who will always drop the Q from QJ (or alwasy drop the J), then restricted choice doesn't really apply. This also applies to the opening lead situation as well. You have to judge your opponent's willingness to lead from somethiong or the other. Against unknowns, you are on you own. Against your local club players and favorite victims (er.... opponents), you should have something of a bead on their leading style. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trpltrbl Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 Best percentage line imho: K♥, A♥ (this order, because you may need 1 more entry to play ♠). If E have 5+♥, than you make J♥. If W have 5+♥, low ♠ to ♠10 finesse and play for 3-3 or J/Qx in E. If E put ♠ J or Q, take, go to dummy with ♣J and low ♠ again from dummy, finesse if not ♠J/Q by E. The beauty of this line is percentages are commulative, because if bad ♥ break, you can stiil try ♠ later. Misho I agree with Misho. Mike ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 Its right that 3-3 spade after taking the AK is more then 50%. on the other handafter AK of spade, taking the finnese of heart give you more then 59%.The finnese is probebly still a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 OK as this is still generating responses, I will publish the reply from Tim Bourke, author and bridge analyst: Hi Ron, The best play for three tricks in spades (71.8%) is SA then low towards the remaining K10x, finessing the ten if East follows low. The best play in hearts is HAK and low towards the jack (77%). Playing spades as suggested works 71% and you have the heart suit in reserve - choosing to play a squeeze or for a finesse as appropriate. This is clearly the best line. These could change if there was a skewed distribution in clubs. Without S10 and 9, ducking a spade works if spades 3-3 or the heart finesse is on (68%). regards Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 I didnt read any post so this line may have been suggested, and i dont do math so i cant give you percentages but: i would play ace of spades, cross to dummy and lead a spade to the ten. This line seems easy and normal, i will make when QJ of spades are onside, or heart hook is on, or spades are 3-3, or Hx of spades onside...how can i play otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 OK as this is still generating responses, I will publish the reply from Tim Bourke, author and bridge analyst: Hi Ron, Tim gave you a list of suits in isolation and not the best play. Prod him. Lol. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.