Was he right?

[gszes]

Sometimes it is just plain easier to understand a concept by using

specific examples rather than just using generic cards. The opposing

missing clubs are KT764. We need only concern ourselves with the

best way to play the club suit WHERE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GET

IT RIGHT. This is importand because there are many club holdings

where we have no chance no matter how we play the suit and those

holdings are IRRELEVANT to our decision making process here.

 

For us to have any chance at success rho must have started with

3 clubs (with the K) OR the KT doubleton. When we play the first

round of clubs the K/7 disappear from the opps club suit and all

that is left are the T64. When we play the second club and a small

card comes from rho the KT doubleton chance is gone and all that

is left is for the original club holding to have been:

 

T7 K64

76 KT4

74 KT6

 

Assuming both opps are capable of randomizing their spot card play

note that once the hands are reduced to 3 card possibilites the odds

favor the finesse by 2/1 since there are 2 possible holdings for rho

to hold the T and only 1 possible holding for LHO to hold the T.

 

That means the original guess to drop the T doubleton was based on

using the wrong logic at the right time. Lending further proof to the long

standing theory "I'd rather be lucky than good".

[phil_20686]

 

 

For us to have any chance at success rho must have started with

3 clubs (with the K) OR the KT doubleton. When we play the first

round of clubs the K/7 disappear from the opps club suit and all

that is left are the T64. When we play the second club and a small

card comes from rho the KT doubleton chance is gone and all that

is left is for the original club holding to have been:

 

(a) T7 K64

(b) 76 KT4

© 74 KT6

 

Assuming both opps are capable of randomizing their spot card play

note that once the hands are reduced to 3 card possibilites the odds

favor the finesse by 2/1 since there are 2 possible holdings for rho

to hold the T and only 1 possible holding for LHO to hold the T.

 

That means the original guess to drop the T doubleton was based on

using the wrong logic at the right time. Lending further proof to the long

standing theory "I'd rather be lucky than good".

 

I thought I killed this zombie.

 

Holding (a) is twice as likely as (b) or ©, since on the first trick lho could have played either spot from (b) and ©, but not from (a), while rho had to play the K.

 

So its fifty fifty.

[aguahombre]

I thought I killed this zombie.

 

Holding (a) is twice as likely as (b) or ©, since on the first trick lho could have played either spot from (b) and ©, but not from (a), while rho had to play the K.

 

So its fifty fifty.

Maybe he doesn't read other posts.

[PhilKing]

I go for the finesse.

 

Either it's 50/50, or the ever-dwindling band of restricted choice fluffers are right.

 

Alternatively, op will crack and tell us which spot card West played on the first round ...

[phil_20686]

I go for the finesse.

 

Either it's 50/50, or the ever-dwindling band of restricted choice fluffers are right.

 

Alternatively, op will crack and tell us which spot card West played on the first round ...

 

In real life there is a strong bias towards playing your lowest spot in these situations, at least that is my experience. If LHO produced the seven I would say there is a strong bias in favour of the drop, as I don't think most players would randomise optimally from 7x.

[Phil]

I think this thread is very offensive to zombies.

[PhilKing]

I thought I killed this zombie.

 

You can't kill a zombie. They are undead.

 

I think this thread is very offensive to zombies.

 

And this is doubtful.

[y66]

You can't kill a zombie. They are undead.

 

According to pop zombologist, Max Brooks, you can kill a zombie by obliterating its brain.

[wyman]

I think this thread is very offensive to zombies.

 

...and fluffers

[gszes]

 

 

T7 K64

76 KT4

74 KT6

 

Assuming both opps are capable of randomizing their spot card play

note that once the hands are reduced to 3 card possibilites the odds

favor the finesse by 2/1 since there are 2 possible holdings for rho

to hold the T and only 1 possible holding for LHO to hold the T.

 

 

I realize i am self correcting========

The above logic is fine as far as it goes but it fails to take into consideration

all of the latest information. The second round of clubs RHO follows with

a small card.

If it was the 6 then the original 3 card holdings are reduced to

74 KT6

T7 K64

If it was the 4 then the original 3 card holdings are reduced to

76 KT4

T7 K64

 

In both cases it has become a 5050 proposition. It has nothing to do with

vacant spaces and little if anything (except at the beginner levels) to do with

restricted choice. Cold hard deductive reasoning (apparently something i was

not capable of after a ten day bridge layoff sigh)

[Zelandakh]

I realize i am self correcting========

...or you could have just given Phil a well-deserved +1. :lol:

[aguahombre]

...or you could have just given Phil a well-deserved +1. :lol:

The Scottish Phil. M's Clayton and King are involved in the movement for fair treatment of the undead --- probably an offshoot topic which actually does merit further exploration.

[mike777]

ya off topic but you raise the issue do robots or at least scottish robots deserve fair treatment if undead or unborn?

[Zelandakh]

ya off topic but you raise the issue do robots or at least scottish robots deserve fair treatment if undead or unborn?

The Scots never deserve fair treatment, dead or alive or undead.

[wyman]

The Scots never deserve fair treatment, dead or alive or undead.

 

:angry:

 

http://i.imgur.com/C6O8U.jpg