Psychology question

[eyhung]

I was playing 2 notrump at matchpoints and had KJ9x of clubs in dummy, ATxx in hand.

 

I got a count on the hand and knew LHO held exactly 3 clubs. So I played a club to the ace, and LHO played the 8 (upside-down). I led a club up and LHO completed a peter. So what was going on? Had LHO played up the line I would have finessed without a second thought, but why is LHO going out of his way to show he has 3 clubs with Qxx of clubs and that club holding in dummy?

 

So, my question is : If this were the only relevant suit (say all the other suits are stopped and the only remaining guess was this), and assuming the opponent were "unknown but doesn't look incompetent", would you play for the drop or finesse?

[gnasher]

Finesse. I'd rather be too stupid to outthink them than be stupid enough to be fooled by a random peter.

[kenrexford]

Several parts of the analysis are missing, all focused on RHO. Sometimes figuring out what LHO is doing is easier by looking at what RHO is doing.

 

Now, if RHO has the Queen, Qx, he is forced to play the "x" regardless of his holding. However, if he has xx, he has a choice. It might be that the pip played by RHO is such as to be inconsistent with count for two, or it might be consistent with count for two. If consistent with count for two, then we may know nothing. But, if inconsistent with count for two, it seems to suggest that someone is not telling the truth, and that person usually has the Queen (and thus sees the problem).

 

Now, there is some merit to playing the Jack first, to get a "read" on how RHO reacts. However, that might also clue him in on the need to falsecard, or you may get a false grimace (some people do that). Playing small may make RHO more nonchalant, with his carding maybe more reliable.

 

Also, were there any signals or deceptions earlier, or in any prior board?

 

Any sweat?

 

There are a ton of psychological clues upon which to rely. In the end, though, the pure math suggests finesse.

[Jlall]

Definitely finesse, if anything your read when they echo should be that they have Qxx rather than xxx if you had to guess one way. With Qxx they are often demoralized when you lead to the ace staring at the KJ in dummy. They know you have guessed which way to finesse correctly (they were just praying you'd play the king :P) Now since you're going to guess correctly, might as well try a desperation echo to confuse/ mind F you and hopefully you outthink yourself into going for the drop now.

 

With xxx they are happy with what's happened and it looks like you are going to finesse the wrong way for sure so they won't rock the boat with an echo.

 

Also, if you might have a 5-4 fit the echo is much more likely to be from Qxx trying to get you into the "they would never give real count with Qxx" mentality so that you go for the drop.

 

Anyways don't give up such a huge math edge unless you're sure of your read, but in this case I think the read definitely points the other way so it'd be even worse heh.

[eyhung]

Several parts of the analysis are missing, all focused on RHO. Sometimes figuring out what LHO is doing is easier by looking at what RHO is doing.

 

Now, if RHO has the Queen, Qx, he is forced to play the "x" regardless of his holding. However, if he has xx, he has a choice. It might be that the pip played by RHO is such as to be inconsistent with count for two, or it might be consistent with count for two. If consistent with count for two, then we may know nothing. But, if inconsistent with count for two, it seems to suggest that someone is not telling the truth, and that person usually has the Queen (and thus sees the problem).

 

Now, there is some merit to playing the Jack first, to get a "read" on how RHO reacts. However, that might also clue him in on the need to falsecard, or you may get a false grimace (some people do that). Playing small may make RHO more nonchalant, with his carding maybe more reliable.

 

Also, were there any signals or deceptions earlier, or in any prior board?

 

Any sweat?

 

There are a ton of psychological clues upon which to rely. In the end, though, the pure math suggests finesse.

The actual spots were :

 

KJ92

 

AT73

 

Two, four, ACE, eight

Three, five, ?

 

Also, in real life, I knew these opponents, and leading the jack would have told me nothing, but I'm curious about the general case when you are sitting down against someone you know nothing about.

[eyhung]

Also, I don't see how "lying indicates the Queen" matters here. The suit is KNOWN to be exactly 3 on the left, 2 on the right. Whoever has the queen by definition has told the truth.

[aguahombre]

Ken, very concise and astute. Gnasher has the practical solution. Me, I go with being stupid anyway and just hook it.

[eyhung]

Answer here:

 

 

I took the finesse -- I'm not one to reject the math unduly. RHO had the doubleton Queen and I wondered whether I should have read LHO to be a count-o-maniac.

 

[gwnn]

I played for the drop in a 5-4 fit at the club and one of my opponents told me, seeing how I was young and inexperenced "but you know I have a small singleton, from xx I play them up the line". He wasn't being sarcastic.

[paulg]

If there is one thing that watching too much BBO vugraph has taught me, it is that the experts follow the odds a lot more than short magazine articles imply.

 

Paul

[kenrexford]

Several parts of the analysis are missing, all focused on RHO.  Sometimes figuring out what LHO is doing is easier by looking at what RHO is doing.

 

Now, if RHO has the Queen, Qx, he is forced to play the "x" regardless of his holding.  However, if he has xx, he has a choice.  It might be that the pip played by RHO is such as to be inconsistent with count for two, or it might be consistent with count for two.  If consistent with count for two, then we may know nothing.  But, if inconsistent with count for two, it seems to suggest that someone is not telling the truth, and that person usually has the Queen (and thus sees the problem).

 

Now, there is some merit to playing the Jack first, to get a "read" on how RHO reacts.  However, that might also clue him in on the need to falsecard, or you may get a false grimace (some people do that).  Playing small may make RHO more nonchalant, with his carding maybe more reliable.

 

Also, were there any signals or deceptions earlier, or in any prior board?

 

Any sweat?

 

There are a ton of psychological clues upon which to rely.  In the end, though, the pure math suggests finesse.

The actual spots were :

 

KJ92

 

AT73

 

Two, four, ACE, eight

Three, five, ?

 

Also, in real life, I knew these opponents, and leading the jack would have told me nothing, but I'm curious about the general case when you are sitting down against someone you know nothing about.

With those spots, everyone is on the same page, showing consistent count. Therefore, it seems that there is little in the way of inference/psychology to avoid the obvious of a finesse.