Plan the play

[Fluffy]

sorry, you posted while I was already typing.

[jallerton]

The recorder did not get the full play, but I believe that Erik Salesminde (note the correct spelling) who I think was the only World Champion at the helm, followed the above line. I am waiting to see the record, which is being uploaded onto Cloud as I write, to check this.

 

The correct spelling of what? I was playing against world champion Erik Sælensminde.

[lamford]

The correct spelling of what? I was playing against world champion Erik Sælensminde.

Frances had "Salsenminde" in the OP. The program has "Erik Saelensminde". I mistyped this (I should have copied and pasted), and I think that most non-Scandivanian sites avoid the ligature. If that is the right word!

[lamford]

The spade pips are actually Q93 with South, which I assume is what you meant to write (as I incorrectly put Q98 in the original post).

Yes, I noticed they were different, although I was not sure how significant, and transposed them when typing.

 

The club pips in hand are actually AQ104, which turned out to be material

I did not think that AQ106 was materially different at the time, so did not comment on it.

 

The Norwegian auction was

1C (natural or balanced) - 1H (spades)

1S (3 spades) - 4S

4NT - 5H (double)

5NT - 6C

6S - Pass

 

so Salesminde was also playing it by the short hand.

His line (which was very slow, he thought a long time about it) was:

heart lead to the queen and ace

ace of diamonds, 10 of diamonds, jack, low, low

8 of spades return won with the nine in hand

club to the king

diamond ruffed low

ace of clubs

<long think>

trumps

 

remember that the club suit was actually K82 opposite AQ104 and that declarer had not promised genuine clubs

On the king and ace of clubs LHO played the 7 and 9 of clubs. RHO played the 3 and 5 of clubs.

 

He clearly decided that the club pips indicated they were breaking 3-3

 

So maybe the kudos go to Jallerton for playing 7,9 from J976 in the suit. Sadly a bit too subtle for the 'best defended' award.

 

At our table, my partner also started by by playing on diamonds. He missed the chance to show off his brilliant card reading because West, the sponsor, didn't cover the 10 of diamonds with the Jack and it ran to East's king (!) He told me he hadn't decided what he was going to do if the queen of diamonds wasn't a winner after 3 rounds of the suit.

All very interesting, and many thanks for that extra information which is useful. I had one further thought that ducking the ten of diamonds even when it is covered by the jack is right, even when the coverer has KJxx, because he can still usually be squeezed in the minors.

 

It is indeed possible that Saelensminde formed the opinion the clubs were 3-3 from the carding. He might also have thought that jallerton was not on his side and had no duty to card honestly. I suspect he was just comparing the chances of the trumps being 3-2 with the combined chances of the clubs 3-3 and the squeezes and went for the latter. I don't think he should have played a second round of clubs, if he is intending to play trumps when both opponents follow, as he risks clubs 5-1 unnecessarily. And I don't think winning a bottle of champagne by choosing the potential squeeze figured. Also I think his play (of drawing trumps) is the right technical line as well, assuming the opponents are good players, as they were here. Gunnar came unstuck by playing for a misdefence by one or other of his opponents in a Six Diamond contract (against cjagger and jallerton I recall), and that is always a dangerous thing to do. It does not seem that either opponent should be giving true count in clubs and game theory is for them to play more or less randomly.

[jallerton]

All very interesting, and many thanks for that extra information which is useful. I had one further thought that ducking the ten of diamonds even when it is covered by the jack is right, even when the coverer has KJxx, because he can still usually be squeezed in the minors.

 

I'm not sure this follows. The diamond menace is going to be isolated anyway after three rounds have been played.

[jallerton]

Frances had "Salsenminde" in the OP. The program has "Erik Saelensminde". I mistyped this (I should have copied and pasted), and I think that most non-Scandivanian sites avoid the ligature. If that is the right word!

 

Yes, but maybe Frances mistyped it as well. If you are going to correct someone's spelling, at least make sure that the quoted "correction" is accurate.

[Vampyr]

Pity you had not both tanked a bit more about which direction you should be sitting at the start of the match. :)

 

22/50 might have been an OK score for Mike et al, since a member of the opposing team told me that they had had a good card at both tables...

 

 

So maybe the kudos go to Jallerton for playing 7,9 from J976 in the suit. Sadly a bit too subtle for the 'best defended' award.

 

 

Perhaps this play was too late for the table monitor to pick up. The monitors are asked to record the play only to the first five tricks, and indeed the form they are given has room for only that number of tricks. For things that happen further on in the play, the analysts have to rely to some extent on the players themselves informing the analysts about their good plays (or even those of the opponents!) The form can be redesigned, though, if the players and analysts think it would be a good idea.

 

Years ago, the monitors were given hand records so that they could more easily follow what was going on. This practice was stopped during my tenure, for obvious reasons.

[PhilKing]

22/50 might have been an OK score for Mike et al, since a member of the opposing team told me that they had had a good card at both tables...

 

 

22/50 was OK for us as well given the score ...

[gnasher]

Perhaps this play was too late for the table monitor to pick up. The monitors are asked to record the play only to the first five tricks, and indeed the form they are given has room for only that number of tricks. For things that happen further on in the play, the analysts have to rely to some extent on the players themselves informing the analysts about their good plays (or even those of the opponents!) The form can be redesigned, though, if the players and analysts think it would be a good idea.

 

Years ago, the monitors were given hand records so that they could more easily follow what was going on. This practice was stopped during my tenure, for obvious reasons.

I think the monitors should be asked to record the entire play, even if only in words rather than the exact cards.

 

Also, the players should be encouraged to report good plays, either by themselves or by their opponents.

[gordontd]

22/50 might have been an OK score for Mike et al, since a member of the opposing team told me that they had had a good card at both tables...

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

[MickyB]

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

 

Indeed, it seems to have happened to both teams on this occasion!

 

[Actually my impression was that our teammates' card was pretty good, but I can't claim to have studied it very closely. Our card was negative.]

[MickyB]

Pity you had not both tanked a bit more about which direction you should be sitting at the start of the match. :)

 

With all eight players sat down, we were NS and our teammates were EW. At this point, I stopped worrying about it!

[Vampyr]

22/50 was OK for us as well given the score ...

 

You'd have been all right if they'd scored both teams 0.

[lamford]

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

I shall, if I have time, cross-IMP the pairs in the 22-22 match with the other pairs in the opposite direction. I think that the Lederer should have a cross-IMP table, but organisers have not bothered as far as I can recall.

 

In passing, I wondered whether that might be a fairer way of scoring a match played in the same direction as well, with a penalty deducted of up to 5 VPs for each team.

[lamford]

I'm not sure this follows. The diamond menace is going to be isolated anyway after three rounds have been played.

Indeed; so even when the person finds the jack from KJxx, you will still make it by ducking unless he has the other heart honour and only two or fewer clubs. So that is more reason to duck the jack if it is played.

[jallerton]

That still doesn't follow. Using that logic one could equally argue that declarer might as well play the queen.

 

Instead declarer should consider:

 

A On what layouts would ducking gain over playing the queen?

B On what layouts would playing the queen gain over ducking?

C What is the relative likelihood of A and B?

 

You mentioned in an earlier post that there is a 'point-a-board' element to the scoring. Although this is relatively minor compared with the potential VP swing for making versus going off in a slam, it would suggest that if close it's better to play the queen to maximise the chance of an overtrick.

[gnasher]

If West plays ♦J:

 

If you're planning to ruff one diamond and then play a squeeze, the queen gains when West has ♦KJx or ♦J9x, and never loses. (This assumes that East has both heart honours.)

 

If you're planning to ruff two diamonds, the queen gains when trumps are 4-1 and West has ♦KJx, ♦KJxx or ♦J9x. It loses when trumps are 4-1 and West has♦J9xx.

[lamford]

A On what layouts would ducking gain over playing the queen?

B On what layouts would playing the queen gain over ducking?

C What is the relative likelihood of A and B?

A Ducking gains when East has ♦Kx or ♦Kxx, and four or more clubs, and West has the other heart honour.

B Playing the queen gains when West has ♦KJxx(x), and has the other heart honour and fewer than three clubs.

C I think A is more likely. After the double of 1H, East is more likely to have each heart honour, but there is a restricted-choice element as well, but these reduce both A and B about equally. I think that at this table it is close, but A is favourite. At another table where they just doubled a 5H response to RKCB, I think that A might be 2-1 on. If we ignore the auction, I think A is a bigger favourite, as not many would find the jack from KJxx. Yes, the ovetrick is unlikely if we play low, that I grant you, but it also makes it less likely that the player has found the J from KJxx(x). If the jack of clubs drops, both lines work.

[lamford]

If West plays ♦J:

 

If you're planning to ruff one diamond and then play a squeeze, the queen gains when West has ♦KJx or ♦J9x, and never loses. (This assumes that East has both heart honours.)

 

If you're planning to ruff two diamonds, the queen gains when trumps are 4-1 and West has ♦KJx, ♦KJxx or ♦J9x. It loses when trumps are 4-1 and West has♦J9xx.

I upvoted your post, but have now reconsidered. If West has KJx of diamonds, there is no gain (except the overtrick) from playing the queen as the king is coming down anyway. And you do not have the 8 of diamonds, so J9x is not good enough. In this line you are down if the red menaces are together and the other hand has ♣Jxxx. You do gain on J98 tripleton with West and the other heart honour with East with clubs not coming in, as you have the seven.

[gnasher]

I upvoted your post, but have now reconsidered.

Probably one of the most ill-judged upvotes I've ever seen.

[jallerton]

A Ducking gains when East has ♦Kx or ♦Kxx, and four or more clubs, and West has the other heart honour.

B Playing the queen gains when West has ♦KJxx(x), and has the other heart honour and fewer than three clubs.

C I think A is more likely. After the double of 1H, East is more likely to have each heart honour, but there is a restricted-choice element as well, but these reduce both A and B about equally. I think that at this table it is close, but A is favourite. At another table where they just doubled a 5H response to RKCB, I think that A might be 2-1 on. If we ignore the auction, I think A is a bigger favourite, as not many would find the jack from KJxx. Yes, the ovetrick is unlikely if we play low, that I grant you, but it also makes it less likely that the player has found the J from KJxx(x). If the jack of clubs drops, both lines work.

 

At the table where East just doubled the 5♥ response to RKCB, I think the chance of A is close to zero. West would not make a lead-directing double of 5♥ hold ♦K and only the queen in hearts.

[Finch]

I think that the Lederer should have a cross-IMP table, but organisers have not bothered as far as I can recall.

 

I don't.

It's an event for teams with hybrid scoring, not for pairs with imp scoring. Why not matchpoint it while you are at it?

[lamford]

I don't.

It's an event for teams with hybrid scoring, not for pairs with imp scoring. Why not matchpoint it while you are at it?

I thought one would both cross-IMP against the datum and then point-a-board with each of the other pairs in the opposite direction and convert the overall result to VPs. I now think it is not worthwhile as there is no program to do this. If I were NPC of a team of six, of whom four played, I would do it manually for my team only as we went along. Match-pointing the event is indeed meaningless, and I presume your question was rhetorical.

[lamford]

At the table where East just doubled the 5♥ response to RKCB, I think the chance of A is close to zero. West would not make a lead-directing double of 5♥ hold ♦K and only the queen in hearts.

Then the chance of B is close to zero as well, as you need one heart honour with West to gain, other than the possible point-a-board. And an expert East with both heart honours might well play the king on the first round, the card he is "known" to hold. Also doubling with ♥Qxxx(x) could be right on some auctions, when it gets partner to lead a heart from ♥Kxx(x), or ♥KTx(x) on a different layout. An initial diamond or a club would not have troubled declarer much on this hand! The player who doubled is not on your side, so he could try to muddy the waters by a fairly random double. And I think the chance of someone playing the jack from ♦KJxx(x) is closer to zero. Finally, my 2-1 on was the relative chance of A over B, not an absolute chance. What one is comparing is just the chance of Kx or Kxx with East with that of KJxx(x) with West, and West playing the jack.

 

The other (unrelated) point against playing the "two ruffs" line is that they could have led trumps to stop this. Of course they do not know the layout when making an opening lead, but they are less likely to lead a trump when they are 4-1.