lamford Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 965 opposite K1072 with plenty of entries to both hands. You need to avoid three losers, and make one trick only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighLow21 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I would play low to the 7 then low to the 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I would play low to the 7 then low to the 10. I know what u are trying to do, u are playing 8 and either Q or J to be onside, the problem is if thats the case dont expect opponents to help you. Assume J appeared when u play small towards KT72, u covered with K and lost to Ace. J can be from stiff, J8, QJ8 QJ8x QJ J8x Jx Not saying u are wrong i didnt calculate the odds, just telling you that u need to be aware of different choice of starts by RHO when u played small from dummy and J or Q appeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Run the 5, covering what RHO plays if he covers, and then run the 6. I win 1 trick by power if the A, Q, J, or 8 is onside. Edit: I did not see "don't lose 3 tricks". My rambling is irrelevent. Two lines come to mind: Low to the Ten or finessing against the 8 initially. finessing against the 8 is necessary when Q8x or J8x or Q8xx or J8xx is onside low to the Ten initially is necessary with QJx onside, or Qx or Jx onside. Without doing calculations, my inclination would be to say that planning on playing low to the Ten then low to the K is better. Edit2: finesse the 8 also loses to QJ/QJx offsides, assuming the plan is to try and pick up Q8x etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 low to T low to K win 50% A on the right,+12% Hx on the right and 12% for QJ(x) on the right so its about 75% I think its going to be tough to beat. I was thinking starting with the 9 but losing to stiff Q/J or losing to Qx/Jx is too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 OK, I have more time, let's analyze the relevant scenerios Finesse the 8 ------- Scenerio (frequency) --------- Low to the 10Wins ---------------- J8x onside (2) --------------- LosesWins ---------------- Q8x onside (2) --------------- LosesWins ---------------- J8xx onside (1) -------------- LosesWins ---------------- Q8xx onside (1) -------------- LosesLoses --------------- QJx onside (2) --------------- WinsLoses --------------- A8x onside (2) --------------- WinsLoses --------------- Qx onside (2) ---------------- WinsLoses --------------- Jx onside (2) ---------------- WinsLoses --------------- Axx onside (1)* -------------- Wins Loses --------------- A8xx onside (1) -------------- Wins *Axx onside 'loses' to finessing against the 8 when the opponent wins the first round with the J or Q instead of cheaply with the 8 I don't think I'm missing any relevant scenerios, but if I am so be it. I see 6 combinations where finesse the 8 wins, and 10 where low to the 10 wins. I'm not sure whether relative frequencies of 4-2 or 3-3 splits matter, but I don't think this is close enough for those sorts of adjustments even if they are relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 You've missed QJxx onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I don't think I'm missing any relevant scenerios, but if I am so be it. I see 6 combinations where finesse the 8 wins, and 10 where low to the 10 wins. I'm not sure whether relative frequencies of 4-2 or 3-3 splits matter, but I don't think this is close enough for those sorts of adjustments even if they are relevant.Yes I think low to the 10 is right. QJxx, which gnasher points out was missing, improves the line. I got it wrong at the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 You've missed QJxx onside. Thanks 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.