Mandatory Falsecarding

[Zelandakh]

This thread is meant as a repository of mandatory and semi-mandatory falsecards. I feel that this is an area where most I/A players can benefit from the advice and examples of the experts in the community. I will try to edit in suggestions to this post as they are given - if the experienced posters can check them and give a heads up for any that are incorrect then that would be very helpful ;) .

 

To start off, I am going to include the examples that Justin gave in the stem thread. Please jump in with further examples!

 

 

A. Offering a pin play (or drop)

 

1. You hold T9x and Dummy on your right holds AJ8xx. Play the T or 9. (If Declarer holds Qxx (partner Kx) then this gives the losing option of playing for T9 doubleton).

2. You hold JTx. Declarer has a suit of AQ9xxxxx opposite a void (either way) giving partner Kx. Drop the J or T under the ace. (This gives Declarer the losing option of playing for JT doubleton).

3. You hold JTx. Declarer holds x on your left and KQ98xxx on your right. When Declarer plays up to the K or Q you must drop an honour. (This give Declarer a guess as to whether we started with JTx opp Ax or JT opp Axx.)

4. You hold Txx. Declarer has Ax on your left and KJ98x on your right. Drop the T under the ace to give Declarer the chance of playing you for QT bare. (Otherwise Declarer will have to play partner for Qxx to pick up the suit.)

 

 

B. Offering a two-way finesse

 

1. You hold J9xx. Declarer holds AK8x on your right and QTxx on your left. Drop the 9 under the ace to set up a two-way finesse for the jack.

2. As above but AKTx on your left and Q8xx on your right.

3. You hold KJx. Declarer has Axx on your left and QT98 on your right and plays up to the T on the first round. Win the king to allow Declarer to finesse partner for the jack. (If you win the J Declarer has no choice but to finesse you for the K.)

 

 

C. Creating a losing finesse position

 

1. You hold KT. Declarer has AQxxx on your left and J9x on your right. When Declarer leads low to the Q you must play the king. (This gives Declarer the losing option of finessing the 9, playing your partner for Txxx.)

2. You hold QT. Declarer has AKxxx on your left and J9x on your right. When Declarer leads low to the AK you must play the queen. (This gives Declarer the losing option of finessing the 9, playing your partner for Txxx.)

3. You hold JTx with AK9xxx on your right. When Declarer plays the queen from your left, drop an honour. (This gives Declarer the option of playing us for a singleton and taking the finesse.)

4. You hold KT8x. Declarer has Q9xx left and AJ7x right. When Declarer finesses the J you can try dropping the 8 under it. (This gives Declarer the possibility of trying to run the Q next, potentially creating a second trick in the suit.

5. You hold QJ9x. Declarer has KT876 on your left and Axx to the right. When Declarer plays a small card on your left, play the 9. (This gives Declarer the option of going up with the K to try running the T.)

6. You hold KJ bare with AQxxx on our left and T8x on our right (partner 9xx). Declarer leads the x from our right. Playing the K means Declarer will most likely play to the T allowing our J to win a trick.

7. You hold Jx with AKTx on your left and declarer on your right has shown 5. When declarer plays up to the AKT it cannot hurt to drop the jack. If partner holds Qx then declarer might decide you split honours and finesse on the second round.

 

 

Not quite falsecarding but related is the concept of playing the card you are known to hold. Some examples of this (there are probably too many to include them all):

 

D: Playing the known card

1. You hold T8x with AJ9xx on your left. Declarer finesses the 9 drawing an honour from partner. When Declarer now plays towards the AJxx you must play the T. (Declarer might now play you for HTx.)

2. You hold QTx. Declarer has AJx on your left with K9xx on your right and begins by finessing the J. When Declarer play the A on the second round you must play the Q. (Declarer can play you for Qx bare.)

 

E: Non-mandatory falsecards

1. Winning a trick with the ace instead of the queen from AQx(x) to encourage declarer to continue the suit when you can see another suit is breaking well for her/him.

2. Dropping an honour to encourage declarer to use up an important entry. As an example, you hold JTxx with K98x on your left and AQ76 on your right. If you drop the jack, declarer will almost certainly cross to the king next.

 

 

In addition, if there is interest we could also add standard positions where you must randomise your cards. I suspect that might be a large topic though and perhaps a separate thread for it would be better - opinions gladly accepted on this.

[campboy]

I was in position B2 a couple of weeks ago and realised a trick too late :(

 

Another one which I guess goes under C. You have JTx and AK9xxx is to your right, Qx to your left; playing an honour under the queen sets up a losing finesse.

[Phil]

Nice thread Zel and I hope there is some meaningful contribution.

 

Don't forget the "card you are known to hold" positions:

 

AJ9xx

 

T8x KQ

 

7xx

[BunnyGo]

Nice thread Zel and I hope there is some meaningful contribution.

 

Don't forget the "card you are known to hold" positions:

 

AJ9xx

 

T8x KQ

 

7xx

 

Is this one that when south leads a card west should put the T up to play the "known" card even before it is known?

[Antrax]

I don't understand A2 :unsure: Do you mean he'll next lead the Q to squash the J/T? He still loses to the K, no? Is it in a suit contract?

[Phil]

Is this one that when south leads a card west should put the T up to play the "known" card even before it is known?

 

After:

 

- low, low, 9, honor

 

and declarer leads low again, West needs to play the T (card you are know to hold (hereafter called "CYAKTH") from the remaining T-8. If West plays small, declarer cannot pick up an original holding of QT8x, so the only chance is to play the A hoping for KQ off. The T provides a losing option.

 

The T on the 1st round is an interesting gambit from some holdings, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

 

(stares at a rabbit hole and wonders whether or not he should jump down into it)

[CSGibson]

In trump:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq875hdc&w=s942hdc&n=st63hdc&e=skjhdc]399|300[/hv]

 

east must contribute the K instead of the J when led from dummy

[Zelandakh]

I don't understand A2 :unsure: Do you mean he'll next lead the Q to squash the J/T? He still loses to the K, no? Is it in a suit contract?

Declarer always has 1 loser in the suit. If the suit is split as described Kx/JTx, then after the small cards fall on the ace Declarer has no choice but to play a small card next and jope that the king drops. Then the Q takes the remaining J/T. If the J or T is played to the first trick then Declarer can play either for Kx/JTx or for Kxx/JT. The former requires a small card while the latter requires the queen.

 

On Phil's example, I am assuming Declarer plays the intrafinesse to the 9, crosses back to hand and then plays up again. Playing the ten now means Declarer has to guess between partner having KQ bare or H8, whereas if we play the 8 the only 3-2 split possible in KQ bare. I will wait for confirmation before adding it to the first post though. Bunny's idea would never have occurred to me without it being mentioned! :unsure:

[Phil]

I don't understand A2 :unsure: Do you mean he'll next lead the Q to squash the J/T? He still loses to the K, no? Is it in a suit contract?

 

With

 

void

 

opposite

 

AQ987654

 

Declarer leads the Ace and sees the 3 and 2. The only hope is to drop Kx and lead low. If he sees the J (the T is parallel), he cannot pick up J / KT32, so the choices are to play for KJ/Txx, Kx/JTx (with the falsecard) or Kxx / JT. There is no losing option after the 3 and 2, but the J/T create a losing option.

[nigel_k]

Another pin play is:

 

KQ98xxx

Ax JTx

x

 

Defender should play J or T.

 

Also:

 

AJ7x

x KT8x

Q9xx

 

Defender should play the 8 when declarer leads to the J. Arguably doesn't count because declarer should just lead low to the Q next if they only need 3 tricks, but maybe it is matchpoints or they are greedy or don't know how many tricks they need.

 

But not:

 

AJ7x

Kx T8x OR K8x Tx

Q9xx

 

Playing the 8 on the first round all the time is inferior and allows declarer to increase their chances if they know the defender does that (but not if both defenders always do it).

[JLOGIC]

Here is a good one:

 

Declarer has KT876 opp Axx. He leads low towards the KT876, now with QJ9x you play the 9. This gives him the option of playing the king and running the ten. If you play low he will be forced to play the 8 (or the ten if he wanted to take a big view, which would work).

[JLOGIC]

If declarer has Axx opp QT98 and starts with low to the ten (either an error or necessary for entry reasons), win the king from KJx. They will probably hook your partner for the jack later, and if you don't they will probably hook you for the king later (this one is not strictly mandatory).

 

AKQ98

xx

 

when they cash the ace, drop the ten or jack from JTx off. Similar to the theme described in the OP.

[phil_20686]

It seems like there is a whole theme of common falsecard positions missing.

 

There are a lot where you hold AQX over the KJT, say, and if you win the Q declarer must fall back on another line (which you can see will work), so instead you must win with the A when declarer plays to the J. You hope next time declarer will repeat the finesse instead of taking a winning finesse in a different suit if you won with the Q.

 

 

 

[lalldonn]

The first hand of world junior team championships 2006 that I watched on vugraph, jlogic won his team a swing dropping the T under the A on the first round of this suit.

 

KJ98x

Qxx Txx

Ax

[JLOGIC]

The first hand of world junior team championships 2006 that I watched on vugraph, jlogic won his team a swing dropping the T under the A on the first round of this suit.

 

KJ98x

Qxx Txx

Ax

 

heh, true I guess this qualifies as a mandatory falsecard if declarer needs 5 tricks in the suit since if the ten doesnt drop they have to play for Qxx onside, and if the T does drop, they can play for QT doubleton.

 

This play worked in real life because it allowed declarer (bessis!) to combine chances in a 6N contract, whereas if the ten didnt drop he wouldnt have that option.

 

This shows that it doesnt really matter if you have many of these obscure ones memorized, at the table if you can recognize "if i drop the ten he would have 5 tricks if I had QT..." that is good enough

[Zelandakh]

I have added the above along with Frances' contribution from the stem thread to the OP. I am not really sure what to do about Phil's category since it seems to be more about whole hands and not fit neatly into a one line summary. I will note though, that I personally find many more opportunities to use that kind of falsecard as Declarer than as a defender. I am also having a tough time getting my head around CSGibson's example. We hold KJ bare with AQxxx on our left and T8x on our right (partner 9xx). Declarer leads the x from our right. The recommendation is to play the K. After taking the ace, Declarer could now win all 5 tricks by banging down the Q but would probably secure only 4 tricks in pratise by playing small to the T. So far, so good. The problem I am having is when we play the J instead. Now Declarer can win all 5 tricks by continuing with the A but what if we hold J bare and partner ducked from K9xx? Now this line gives up 2 tricks to partner's K9. So if we never play the J from KJ here, Declarer can always pick up partner's K9xx for only 1 loser. These are the kinds of things that make my head spin. Can someone help me out here please.

[CSGibson]

I have added the above along with Frances' contribution from the stem thread to the OP. I am not really sure what to do about Phil's category since it seems to be more about whole hands and not fit neatly into a one line summary. I will note though, that I personally find many more opportunities to use that kind of falsecard as Declarer than as a defender. I am also having a tough time getting my head around CSGibson's example. We hold KJ bare with AQxxx on our left and T8x on our right (partner 9xx). Declarer leads the x from our right. The recommendation is to play the K. After taking the ace, Declarer could now win all 5 tricks by banging down the Q but would probably secure only 4 tricks in pratise by playing small to the T. So far, so good. The problem I am having is when we play the J instead. Now Declarer can win all 5 tricks by continuing with the A but what if we hold J bare and partner ducked from K9xx? Now this line gives up 2 tricks to partner's K9. So if we never play the J from KJ here, Declarer can always pick up partner's K9xx for only 1 loser. These are the kinds of things that make my head spin. Can someone help me out here please.

 

Ducking would be a nice play, and would give declarer a losing option - one I would almost certainly fall for if pulled off smoothly (I'm gullible). I put this type of thing in the same category as playing the 8 from KT8x when declarer plays to the AJx with Q97xx in hand.

[JLOGIC]

I have added the above along with Frances' contribution from the stem thread to the OP. I am not really sure what to do about Phil's category since it seems to be more about whole hands and not fit neatly into a one line summary. I will note though, that I personally find many more opportunities to use that kind of falsecard as Declarer than as a defender. I am also having a tough time getting my head around CSGibson's example. We hold KJ bare with AQxxx on our left and T8x on our right (partner 9xx). Declarer leads the x from our right. The recommendation is to play the K. After taking the ace, Declarer could now win all 5 tricks by banging down the Q but would probably secure only 4 tricks in pratise by playing small to the T. So far, so good. The problem I am having is when we play the J instead. Now Declarer can win all 5 tricks by continuing with the A but what if we hold J bare and partner ducked from K9xx? Now this line gives up 2 tricks to partner's K9. So if we never play the J from KJ here, Declarer can always pick up partner's K9xx for only 1 loser. These are the kinds of things that make my head spin. Can someone help me out here please.

 

To really mess with your head, consider that with J9 you could play the jack. If you did, partner must with the K with Kxx.

[rwbarton]

It seems like there is a whole theme of common falsecard positions missing.

 

There are a lot where you hold AQX over the KJT, say, and if you win the Q declarer must fall back on another line (which you can see will work), so instead you must win with the A when declarer plays to the J. You hope next time declarer will repeat the finesse instead of taking a winning finesse in a different suit if you won with the Q.

 

Or similarly how about winning the K or Q when you hold KQT(x...) over dummy's AJ9 and declarer plays low to the 9, trying to entice declarer into finessing against the other high honor later.

 

(Today an opponent decided to win the Q from QTxxx in this position; that was rather less effective. :) )

[Zelandakh]

I am off on holiday for a couple of weeks but am still hoping for some additional imput on this thread and will check it when I get back. I am certain there are more mandatory falsecarding positions than are currently listed!

[phil_20686]

I quite like this one:

 

AKTx

Jx Qx

xxxxx

 

when declarer plays a club up you can insert the J. Then he has to worry if you have been clueless from QJx. I have seen it work before.

 

Most of the good falscards are more about controlling the hand, for example:

 

K98x

JTxx

AQ76

 

If they cash the Ace, you can control the entry position by dropping the J. The will cross to the K in case rho has Txxx, but sometimes it benefits your to make him use an entry for no reason.

[semeai]

I quite like this one:

 

AKTx

Jx Qx

xxxxx

 

when declarer plays a club up you can insert the J. Then he has to worry if you have been clueless from QJx. I have seen it work before.

 

Nice one.

 

Most of the good falscards are more about controlling the hand, for example:

 

K98x

JTxx

AQ76

 

If they cash the Ace, you can control the entry position by dropping the J. The will cross to the K in case rho has Txxx, but sometimes it benefits your to make him use an entry for no reason.

 

Slightly risky. I guess a related falsecard then is that with some of Jx, Tx, Jxx, or Txx in the same spot you drop the J/T (sort of like dropping the J in your first example).

[Zelandakh]

I have added phil's first but I have a question about the second. Did you mean Txx? When declarer plays the 6 they will know partner cannot have Txxx once you play a low card on this trick. Does this also mean that holding Jx or Tx in this position, the honour is a mandatory falsecard too?

[phil_20686]

I have added phil's first but I have a question about the second. Did you mean Txx? When declarer plays the 6 they will know partner cannot have Txxx once you play a low card on this trick. Does this also mean that holding Jx or Tx in this position, the honour is a mandatory falsecard too?

 

You only have to drop from those positions some of the time. In reality, I have yet to meet a declarer who will believe that you dropped an honour from JTxx giving up a "certain trick", as it were. Most of these positions about what you would do in other positions is a bit irrelevant, since you seldom play any other pair enough times for the other case to come up. :)

 

Playing the ten from Tx is not that uncommon, for example.

[Zelandakh]

This example, as well as Phil's previous entry about winning the A from AQx, seem to move us firmly into the shadowy area of non-mandatory falsecards. I have been thnking about the best way to handle these and it seems to me that listing specific cases is likely to be too difficult and long-winded. So I have added a further category for these and will try to prune them down to general themes, which I hope will keep everything manageable and still concise enough to be useful to readers.