Expert or idiot?

[gnasher]

This deal has already appeared in a couple of threads, so I won't give it as a problem.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s82hkqj8532d84c63&w=sa9653hdk752cq952&n=st7h764dat93cakjt&e=skqj4hat9dqj6c874&d=s&v=e&a=3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The play went:

♦2 (4th) to the ace, 6 (standard count) and 8

A heart from dummy, won by East's ace as West threw an encouraging spade

♠K, West giving count

♠J, overtaken with the ace

Spade.

 

What do you think of West's play?

 

Edit: ♦2 promised an honour. Scoring was IMPs.

Edited October 4, 2012 by gnasher

[Fluffy]

can´t see what distribution he is playing declarer for, 4612?, why did partner take first heart?

[phil_20686]

can´t see what distribution he is playing declarer for, 4612?, why did partner take first heart?

 

I think both west and east played badly, East knows that the principle difficulty on these hands is working out declares shape, he now knows south to be 2722, so he should cash the diamond first, to let west into the secret.

 

On the other hand, west should know that east holding KJ tight is unlikely. It takes a great deal of partnership trust, perhaps a suicidal level, for west to overtake based on the understanding that it is correct for east to cash the diamond if it is cashing, and that since east knows the distribution 100%, he would only continue a spade before a diamond if they did not have four cashing tricks and needed a spade ruff.

[bluecalm]

Depends on level of trust you have. 2♦ means 4 of them so if partner didn't cash the diamond it should mean diamonds don't cash. 4-6-1-2 is not very likely and neither is 4-7-1-1 but they are possible.

I am sure if we made such play with my semi regular pd we would agree E made a mistake and if W cashed diamonds nevertheless we would call it "damage control approach" (which is what we call the way of playing when you go with apriori odds and not with what partner is doing).

[Codo]

I don't get East plays.

East knows that they need to catch their tricks, so why did he play the jack of spades? If he plays the queen and switches to a diamond, he has a sure down. And - after he played the ace of hearts- there are surely no more tricks to come outside diamonds.

 

So maybe West thought: If East takes the first heart and does not play the queen of spades, he just has two of them and wants a ruff. What other reasons could partner have for his plays?

But OTOH with Q842, KQJxxx,x,xx declarer might had played on different lines (elamination of the spades f.e...) and partner had not grabbed his ace of trumps?

[MickyB]

Something like QTxx KQTxxxx x x with declarer? East needs to fly ace of trumps otherwise declarer will take the club finesse and pitch his spades.

[Codo]

declarer may well ruff a diamond to hand to take the club finesse in your example.

[MickyB]

He didn't know he needed the club finesse until he found out trumps were 3-0

[rhm]

Taking the trump ace immediately was necessary.

Technically cashing a ♦ honor next would have been right, since East knows the count.

So playing spades first, particularly the second one, was wrong.

I would not have overtaken as West unless playing with somebody known to be very good.

So East was neither an expert nor an idiot.

I would expect most experienced tournament players to do what East did and West was playing for a fairly unlikely layout.

 

I do not believe it is winning Bridge to assume your partner is a faultless robot.

But that is because I often play with weak players.

Better to weigh the evidences and likelihoods and know your partner.

I might have considered overtaking, but would often reject it. This is often unsatisfactory but winning Bridge.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

Maybe he did not "cash a diamond" because the lead of the 2 of diamond did not promise an honour and the spade return was "safer"?

[gnasher]

♦2 promised an honour. I've edited the original post.

[Codo]

Then Rainer is right about the diamond return....

 

East did anything to convince West that they have no diamond to cash and that their only chance is a spade ruff... He succeeded.

[lalldonn]

I agree east should have taken the second diamond before going to spades.

 

A point I haven't seen mentioned is that if east doesn't want west to overtake the second spade they he should play the king followed by the queen. West would be able to trust that with KQ doubleton if east wanted the second spade overtaken he would have played the queen followed by the king.

 

I think west defended well. I don't see any reason the hand couldn't be Micky's example.

[JLOGIC]

My first reaction was that west was punishing partner for a lazy play, but if the 2 of diamonds really promised an honor and showed FOUR simultaneously I don't know what on earth east is doing lol.

 

I guess this is one of those spots I think you should get right irl, if you are playing with someone who might not cash the diamond you should probably know it. But that said, maybe this was a one off loss of brain by east, it does happen, but it's hard to imagine.

[WellSpyder]

Depends on level of trust you have. 2♦ means 4 of them so if partner didn't cash the diamond it should mean diamonds don't cash. 4-6-1-2 is not very likely and neither is 4-7-1-1 but they are possible.

I am sure if we made such play with my semi regular pd we would agree E made a mistake and if W cashed diamonds nevertheless we would call it "damage control approach" (which is what we call the way of playing when you go with apriori odds and not with what partner is doing).

I think I will try to encourage my partner to think about a "damage control approach"! Last time we played, he went for what I thought was pretty much a 0% chance in defence after I had failed to play the most informative card, and only on thinking about it a bit more afterwards did I realise that my disappointment was really that he hadn't saved me from my error, not that he had made one himself....

[JLOGIC]

4711 is not even close to 0 %. I mean, declarer even remembered to play the 8 of diamonds at trick 1 (correct because the opps play standard carding). So the diamond suit certainly adds up with partner having 4. And not all errors are created equally. I agree with not hanging partner for something obscure, but it's a cashout situation and his partner had led the two showing FOUR and AN HONOR! It is really a shockingly bad error to not cash the diamond immediately. On top of that, easts second spade was the JACK. I mean TYP lol why on earth wouldn't he play the queen? He really did a good job confusing his partner, he didn't just make some obscure error.

 

I think if west didn't have the 9 of spades it *might* have saved him since most declarers would cover the J of spades with the T in dummy and Q9x in their hand. But even then, declarer wouldn't have to, and declarer must at least be a reasonable player given that he played the right diamond at trick 1. Still, it would be a clue, but given wests spade 9 it doesn't exist.

[gnasher]

Declarer was Gunnar Hallberg (again).

[PhilKing]

If this board occurred after the slam where East flew with the ♣A I think you should have gone easy on partner and just cash out (although the jack is a sick sick card, but there's no point dwelling on East's defence).

 

I don't really think Gunnar would open 3♥ with the 4711 hand at favourable, but his hearts may be KJTxxxx, ditto 4612 but it is possible.

 

West has made an expert play, but sometimes an expert play can be idiotic. I would not brand this as idiotic since Gunnar preempts heavier than most.

[gnasher]

I was West, in case anyone hasn't worked that out.

 

I think I made the mistake of thinking in absolute terms: "If the diamond was cashing, partner would have cashed it, so a spade ruff is the only chance." Instead, I should have approached it like most bridge problems, by estimating probabilities.

 

I should have asked myself what were the relative probabilities of (1) a 3♥ opening on a 4711 shape at green and (2) partner's cashing his winners in the wrong order, and playing the wrong spade on the second round. Those were both quite small numbers, but I think I should have concluded that (1) was smaller.

 

If this board occurred after the slam where East flew with the ♣A I think you should have gone easy on partner and just cash out

That's a good point, which again I probably wouldn't have considered. As it happens, this was three boards into the match and the opponents had just gone down in a game, so one wouldn't expect partner to be distracted by earlier boards.

[Codo]

Sorry Andy, I still do not get it.

Your partner did anything he could to convince you that you need to play a spade.

I do not play in your league, but if you had returned anything but a spade after I had defended like East, I had been really annoyed.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

A heart from dummy, won by East's ace as West threw an encouraging spade ....

... ( then ) ♠K, West giving count

 

If West started with only 3 cards ♠, how could he give a convincing "present count" with only A x left ?

[PhilKing]

If West started with only 3 cards ♠, how could he give a convincing "present count" with only A x left ?

 

I, for one, can live with this kind of ambiguity. One can never have too few cards in suit when trying to cash out. This position is a bit like when you follow with a singleton - although holding to two is so much clearer than having to play a woolly seven.

[gszes]

I was West, in case anyone hasn't worked that out.

 

I think I made the mistake of thinking in absolute terms: "If the diamond was cashing, partner would have cashed it, so a spade ruff is the only chance." Instead, I should have approached it like most bridge problems, by estimating probabilities.

 

I should have asked myself what were the relative probabilities of (1) a 3♥ opening on a 4711 shape at green and (2) partner's cashing his winners in the wrong order, and playing the wrong spade on the second round. Those were both quite small numbers, but I think I should have concluded that (1) was smaller.

 

 

 

You defended the board perfectly--your side used count (4th best opening lead) and your p correctly rose with the trump A to prevent declarer from taking a winning club

finesse. Your p failed to try and cash the dia Q then revert to spades. If a mistake is made when proper information is exchanged you can only grin and bear it or change

partners if it is too irritating. It is however very unflattering to assume errors and start making your plays based on stictly % as if the information was completely irrelevant

and contrary to some opinion it is not winning bridge. Save the % for hands where the information is not clear cut and work harder on getting as much clear cut information

as possible ---as an aside--what was E trying to accomplish with spade K followed by J after you had already encouraged in spades. If your signals do not change based on

new information maybe they should.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Declarer was Gunnar Hallberg (again).

Another question. How often does Gunnar preempt with 4 cards in the other-Major ?

And, is that commonplace these days ?

It used to be taboo .

[mikeh]

I was West, in case anyone hasn't worked that out.

 

I think I made the mistake of thinking in absolute terms: "If the diamond was cashing, partner would have cashed it, so a spade ruff is the only chance." Instead, I should have approached it like most bridge problems, by estimating probabilities.

 

I should have asked myself what were the relative probabilities of (1) a 3♥ opening on a 4711 shape at green and (2) partner's cashing his winners in the wrong order, and playing the wrong spade on the second round. Those were both quite small numbers, but I think I should have concluded that (1) was smaller.

 

 

That's a good point, which again I probably wouldn't have considered. As it happens, this was three boards into the match and the opponents had just gone down in a game, so one wouldn't expect partner to be distracted by earlier boards.

Andy, I think you are being way too hard on yourself, altho my thoughts are somewhat contingent on who you were playing with.

 

if a client, then I think you ought to have got it right.

 

if a non-client and especially if a regular or potentially regular partner, then I think you defended correctly, for more than one reason.

 

 

I think there are two reasons why your defence was correct.

 

The first is that (for me, at least) the most effective way to learn is to screw something up and suffer consequences.

 

Any partner worth cultivating would immediately apologize to you after this misdefence and the error would operate as a lesson far better than would be the case if you 'saved' him from the error.

 

Secondly, as a matter of partnership trust, just imagine that he has defended brilliantly...that his defence was the only way to beat the contract, and you had refused to do so because you felt it more likely that he had screwed up than that declarer had made an offbeat call.

 

I have often played the wrong card and found myself hoping that partner would play me to have made a mistake....but in the long run I know I'm better off when partner assumes I knew what I was doing...it really helps reduce the sloppiness that underlies this sort of mistake.