Just checking

[1eyedjack]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s8hkj6dk7642ct963&s=sakjt975ha54dqc54]133|200|Scoring: IMP

S...W...N...E

1♠..P..1N..P

3♠..P..3N..P

4♠..P...P...P

 

T1: ♣2, 6, A, 4

T2: ♣8, 5, J, 3

T3: ♣K, 9, Q, ..

Over to you[/hv]

[billw55]

Well, if there is a trump loser, then I can afford no losers in the reds. If there is not a trump loser, I can afford one. So I ruff the third club, and cash the ♠AK. If the Q does not drop, I finesse the J♥ to pitch a diamond on the ♣T.

[Fluffy]

I can't improve that

[kenrexford]

Well, one of two things is going on here.

 

RHO might just have made a mistake. (Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.)

 

Or, RHO is running a scam. (Unless the horse is made of wood.)

 

RHO presumably started with AQx. If he started with AQxx, the scam is assured, but even with AQx, the defense is weird. RHO should expect that partner has honor-fourth in clubs, preumably. I mean, RHO might be playing for RHO to have just some junk cards, but this sure looks like a time to play back the Queen, to maintain control of the defense and to protect partner's likely long honor. (In other words, to avoid what actually happened.)

 

RHO, if he played the Queen of clubs, could find a diamond shift himself. This would presumably place the contract into a spade finesse. So, I really think RHO has the Qxx in spades for this defense and is trying to avoid that which seems obvious if he provides the obvious defense.

 

RHO's thinking might be to dangle the carrot of a quick club trick to induce our line. So, RHO may well have the diamond Ace, heart Queen, spade Queen, and club AQ, can read partner's club lead, and therefore expects that what is going on is what is actually going on.

 

If all of this copnspiracy theory makes sense, then I suppose I should go where the field (other table) will go. They will presumably (against our good partners) get the same lead, with the club Queen played instead and someone grabbing the diamond Ace before throwing Declarer in to finesse spades after ditching a heart on the established diamond King. Wanting parity with that line, play the diamond Queen immediately. Ain't biting.

 

Of course, if RHO looks like a dunce, the proposed line makes sense.

[mich-b]

Well, one of two things is going on here.

 

RHO might just have made a mistake.  (Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.)

 

Or, RHO is running a scam.  (Unless the horse is made of wood.)

 

RHO presumably started with AQx.  If he started with AQxx, the scam is assured, but even with AQx, the defense is weird.  RHO should expect that partner has honor-fourth in clubs, preumably.  I mean, RHO might be playing for RHO to have just some junk cards, but this sure looks like a time to play back the Queen, to maintain control of the defense and to protect partner's likely long honor.  (In other words, to avoid what actually happened.)

 

RHO, if he played the Queen of clubs, could find a diamond shift himself.  This would presumably place the contract into a spade finesse.  So, I really think RHO has the Qxx in spades for this defense and is trying to avoid that which seems obvious if he provides the obvious defense.

 

RHO's thinking might be to dangle the carrot of a quick club trick to induce our line.  So, RHO may well have the diamond Ace, heart Queen, spade Queen, and club AQ, can read partner's club lead, and therefore expects that what is going on is what is actually going on.

 

If all of this copnspiracy theory makes sense, then I suppose I should go where the field (other table) will go.  They will presumably (against our good partners) get the same lead, with the club Queen played instead and someone grabbing the diamond Ace before throwing Declarer in to finesse spades after ditching a heart on the established diamond King.  Wanting parity with that line, play the diamond Queen immediately.  Ain't biting.

 

Of course, if RHO looks like a dunce, the proposed line makes sense.

Yes, and an elephant can fly....

 

In real life people dont defend like that, they do it only in books , or in a paranoid declarer's fantasys.

Unless your RHO is Helgemo, or someone of his ability, RHO has AQx in ♣. period. Now go figure whatever line is best.

 

And if I am wrong and RHO did have AQxx? less than once in a blue moon, and I am willing to go down whenever he did that.

[billw55]

hmm that's kind of an interesting theory. Let me see if I follow this.

 

Righty's play so far looks bad. So maybe he is doing it on purpose to fool me, which means he expects me to make it if he defends normally. So, what would I be doing if the ♣T was not promoted? Well, I would need zero losers in trumps, which might induce me to try the finesse - which I certainly otherwise would not, since it only gains when righty has exactly Qxx. Therefore he does have that, otherwise why fudge the club suit?

 

It's not a con I would have thought of myself, but admittedly it does sound like something a true expert might dream up.

 

So what happened on the actual hand?

[1eyedjack]

So what happened on the actual hand?

I took the suggested normal line - cashed ♠AK, all following low, took a losing ♥finesse and drifted two off. ♠Q was onside, so I could have made by exiting with ♦Q at trick 4 and later hooking the ♠ after pitching ♥ loser on ♦K

[jdonn]

So what happened on the actual hand?

I took the suggested normal line - cashed ♠AK, all following low, took a losing ♥finesse and drifted two off. ♠Q was onside, so I could have made by exiting with ♦Q at trick 4 and later hooking the ♠ after pitching ♥ loser on ♦K

The actual winning line gains when it's Qxx of spades on your right and the heart finesse is off. Your line line gains when it's Q or Qx or Qxx or sometimes Qxxx or Qxxxx of spades on your left and the heart finesse is on. I don't think it takes Pythagoras to calculate that your line is better.

[billw55]

The actual winning line gains when it's Qxx of spades on your right and the heart finesse is off. Your line line gains when it's Q or Qx or Qxx or sometimes Qxxx or Qxxxx of spades on your left and the heart finesse is on. I don't think it takes Pythagoras to calculate that your line is better.

True but the actual layout is exactly what kenrexford shrewdly perceived. I wonder who righty was.

[jdonn]

The actual winning line gains when it's Qxx of spades on your right and the heart finesse is off. Your line line gains when it's Q or Qx or Qxx or sometimes Qxxx or Qxxxx of spades on your left and the heart finesse is on. I don't think it takes Pythagoras to calculate that your line is better.

True but the actual layout is exactly what kenrexford shrewdly perceived. I wonder who righty was.

This is kind of like the argument for intelligent design.

[gwnn]

!!!

http://i45.tinypic.com/6r0fb6.jpg

[billw55]

This is kind of like the argument for intelligent design.

Perhaps :P

 

Righty's play to tricks 2 and 3 could simply be a mistake. Or, it could be ken's ruse. Knowing who was sitting there, might help us decide which is more likely. With the very large majority, I would be inclined to accept it as a mistake. But if it was a known expert, well ...

[jdonn]

Gwnn I liked your first picture.

[ArtK78]

I need to know one thing.

 

Did RHO have AQxx of clubs?

[1eyedjack]

I need to know one thing.

 

Did RHO have AQxx of clubs?

no it was just tripleton. AQxx would have been a better story.

[jdonn]

RHO just returned a low club because he played south for Kx and didn't want to waste the queen. It's not going to be some elaborate scheme to give us another option and induce a different line than we were otherwise going to take. Even if RHO is an expert. Almost no one in the world is capable of that and even the ones that are usually wouldn't find it.

 

Be practical. Occam's razor applies here...

[rogerclee]

Almost no one in the world is capable of that and even the ones that are usually wouldn't find it.

Agree that in general, people who are not the best players in the world give people who are the best players in the world too much credit.

[gnasher]

A useful rule is "If in doubt, play for them to have done something stupid."

[eyhung]

A useful rule is "If in doubt, play for them to have done something stupid."

My advice on the same lines is :

 

"Don't play your opponent to be a genius."

 

This sounds similar to "play your opponents to have done something stupid" but is actually not the same. In general I think it's ok to play opponents, especially good ones, to be competent -- this includes classic "greek gift" situations where the opponent offers you a finesse he didn't need to give you. But to play opponents to be stupid is a different mindset entirely, and can be very dangerous to one's technique. I notice that when I feel contempt towards my opponents, I tend to take technically flawed but psychologically superior lines. This may be correct from a results perspective but it's bad from a skill development perspective.

 

In a good event, I find it helpful to credit most of my opponents with a brain, but not a great one. For example, at notrump, I will give my opponents credit for ducking a finesse of AQJTx in dummy with Kxx(x) in tempo, but not Kx [which is either brilliant or foolish]. Similarly, if I lead up to AJ9 in dummy and LHO goes up Royal, it's a guess to me as to whether he holds RRx or RTx -- but if I lead up to AJ7 with 986 in hand and LHO inserts a Royal, he's probably splitting from KQx.

[eyhung]

One clarification: in this situation I would play RHO to have erred because there was a reason for him to lead low from AQx at trick 2 (maybe the K is doubleton in declarer's hand and he wants to leave his partner an exit in clubs). But I'm assuming RHO erred not because I think he's stupid, but because I think he misjudged the situation. Also, to assume the opposite, that RHO held AQxx, requires him to be a genius.

[gwnn]

Gwnn I liked your first picture.

it was the absolute first hit for "flying elephant" on google. Its really not something worth posting.

[kenrexford]

I think y'all are looking at this the wrong way, actually.

 

My concern at IMP's (other than IMP Pairs) is not so much with what my RHO is thinking on this hand. My concerns is with parity and what my known RHO partner at the other table will be thinking.

 

If RHO in fact has AQx and mis-defended, then at the other table the defense will presumably go differently, forcing me into the normal line against normal defense. Therefore, the other guy at the other table will knock out the diamond Ace for a heart pitch and will finesse spades.

 

Assuming this, I am skeptical of the "gift."

 

I mean, RHO can be an idiot but the noral line works over the newly available line, anyway. At worse, I expect to push the board.

 

That said, I think the assumption of error when the error directs you into a line that could fail when the normal line would work is dangerous. Case in point...

[655321]

I think y'all are looking at this the wrong way, actually.

 

My concern at IMP's (other than IMP Pairs) is not so much with what my RHO is thinking on this hand.  My concerns is with parity and what my known RHO partner at the other table will be thinking.

Don't agree with this at all.

 

Look, I haven't done the maths, for all I know the best line is to knock out the ♦A. But I do know that you should play the line that gives you the best chance of making 4♠ now, not the line that would have been best if opponents had defended double dummy.

[kenrexford]

I think y'all are looking at this the wrong way, actually.

 

My concern at IMP's (other than IMP Pairs) is not so much with what my RHO is thinking on this hand.  My concerns is with parity and what my known RHO partner at the other table will be thinking.

Don't agree with this at all.

 

Look, I haven't done the maths, for all I know the best line is to knock out the ♦A. But I do know that you should play the line that gives you the best chance of making 4♠ now, not the line that would have been best if opponents had defended double dummy.

If we assume that your assessment of how tricky this hand may be for the defense is accurate, you still end up with a completely different principle.

 

Suppose that the original line would have about a rough 50-50 chance of success. Suppose that the defense error gives you an alternative that has a 60% chance of success, but a third of the failing new lines would have meant that the original line would have worked. Plus, maybe a third of the original line deals would work on either line.

 

You end up, then, with some smaller percentage of layouts where the new line works but the old line would not, risking a few deals where the old line works but the new line does not.

 

Your end result is volatility. In the end result, perhaps you win more of the volatiles than the opponents. However, they seem to have made a mistake, suggesting that you are better than them. Don't risk volatility against a weaker team.

 

If they are in fact really good, better or equal to you, then they could have found this ruse, because you could have found this ruse. So, don't bite.

[jdonn]

Ken you are LOLing me. Sorry but what you are saying may be an interesting thought process but it's the opposite of winning bridge. And then you justify it by resulting?? And making a bad defensive play doesn't make someone an idiot or a moron, or we would all be morons every session we play. And if you want to say "we are" that just goes back to the point that that's what you should play to be happening here.