A trick one guess

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjthak752dk6ct42&n=saq2hqt83dt93cq87&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1n(15-17)p3nppp]266|200[/hv]

Apologies if you know the hand, from NewinBridge, and apologies if it has already appeared - I did not see it on a quick look through. The auction was, surprisingly, the same in both rooms, and the lead was the same, the six of clubs. Two world-class players played differently here. Which card do you play from dummy at trick one and why?

[wank]

i can see the argument for the queen - dummy was likely to be stacked in the minors so a lead from a tenace would be unattractive but a low lead from akxxx becomes more attractive vis a vis leading a high one. whether that's enough to overturn the 2:1 a priori odds, who knows?

 

edit: i responded too fast. i didn't bother looking at the rest of the hand. the prospect of losing t1 and opps cashing the diamond suit is surely large enough to overturn the odds in the club suit irrespective of other factors.

 

low would be more temping if lho was a passed hand then he won't have ak a

[wanoff]

I guess it's slightly better to duck as if the ♦A is wrong, some of the time diamonds will be blocked.

[PhilKing]

It may come as a surprise to some people, but hands like this are not about the pure odds (which are pretty close anyway). On the occasions when East has Ax or Kx or clubs and West has the diamond ace, it is pretty unlikely that East will work out that a diamond switch is necessary. After all, a club return is needed if West has a top heart rather than the diamond ace.

 

I have not seen the newinbridge article or the hand, but it seems to me that if you put up the queen, you are looking at the big picture, but not in the right way. Playing low is much better imo.

 

Edit: having just seen the hand, I wonder if the opening lead was slow (which Meck would pick up on, for sure). I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning speculated on by the analyst at all.

[broze]

I think Phil's point is an excellent one. I haven't seen the hand but I bet most of the time it is low that is right in practice.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If you assume West did NOT lead away from BOTH ♣A and K, then from Rule-of- 11 , East can't have the J or the 9.

So, playing LOW generates a sure stop.

The next guess is whether East, upon winning the A ( or K ), will return a ♣ or switch to a ♦ .

[wanoff]

If you assume West did NOT lead from BOTH ♣A and K, then from Rule-of- 11 , East can't have the J or the 9.

So, playing LOW generates a sure stop.

 

The next guess is whether East, upon winning the A ( or K ), will return a ♣ or switch to a ♦ .

 

A false premise. I've seen the hand now and players of this level will usually underlead AKxxx, unless holding ♦A.

[MickyB]

Edit: having just seen the hand, I wonder if the opening lead was slow (which Meck would pick up on, for sure). I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning speculated on by the analyst at all.

 

You think a slow lead is more likely to indicate AKxxx [considering leading the ace] than AJxxx/KJxxx [considering leading a different suit]? I am unconvinced. I guess Meck just thought Brad would choose to lead something other than AJxxx/KJxxx in a minor sufficiently often to outweigh diamond blockage, etc.

 

Someone has commented on the article to suggest that T1:♣6QAT may get a diamond switch, sounds plausible.

[Fluffy]

diamonds blocked? 3 diamonds and 2 clubs defeat 3NT as well, there is no 9th trick on sight.

[MickyB]

diamonds blocked? 3 diamonds and 2 clubs defeat 3NT as well, there is no 9th trick on sight.

 

AJ/AQ tight diamond

[lamford]

Edit: having just seen the hand, I wonder if the opening lead was slow (which Meck would pick up on, for sure). I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning speculated on by the analyst at all.

I did not entirely agree with the reasoning either that a player was more likely to lead from AKxx(x) than AJxx(x) or KJxx(x). But I do not think the speed of lead would be much different either. After all the auction 1NT-3NT has occurred once or twice before, so the person will just do what he normally does.

a) playing the queen is quite likely to get a diamond switch from Ax(x), as it what declarer would play from dummy with KJx in clubs.

b) theoretically, the two lines are equal, as playing low fails when West has the ace of diamonds. Assuming East can guess to switch.

c) the contract in the other room is likely to be 4H, which will fail unless the ace of diamonds is onside and both clubs honours are onside and the clubs 4-3. If we are ahead in the match (which we were) we should avoid an unlucky swing.

d) Most of the time we are off in 3NT for a flat board. Playing low is about 33% (East with the king or ace and no jack, and no ace of diamonds). Playing the queen is about 33% (East with J of clubs not the ace or king). The former gains when they "err" in not switching; the latter gains when they "err" in switching.

e) Meckstroth often prefers a psychological play over a technical play and this hand was, in my opinion, no exception.

f) I don't think a diamond blockage plays a big part.

[PhilKing]

I did not agree with the reasoning either that a player was more likely to lead from AKxx(x) than AJxx(x) or KJxx(x). But I do not think the speed of lead would be much different either. After all the auction 1NT-3NT has occurred once or twice before, so the person will just do what he normally does.

a) playing the queen is quite likely to get a diamond switch from Ax(x), as it what declarer would play from dummy with KJx in clubs.

 

This is just flat out wrong for two reasons. Firstly, leading a minor against this auction is a pretty big statement, so why should East switch. That is a somewhat general point. The silver bullet is that East can cash the diamond ace with Axx(x).

 

b) theoretically, the two lines are equal, as playing low fails when West has the ace of diamonds. Assuming East can guess to switch.

 

The point is that he won't switch to a diamond with Ax/Kx club and, say Jxxx of diamonds. That would be pretty ridiculous, even though successful on this occasion.

 

c) the contract in the other room is likely to be 4H, which will fail unless the ace of diamonds is onside and both clubs honours are onside and the clubs 4-3. If we are ahead in the match (which we were) we should avoid an unlucky swing.

 

This is true in the Bedfordshire Swiss Teams, but here one could reasonably guess that the auction would be duplicated quite often.

 

d) Most of the time we are off in 3NT for a flat board. Playing low is about 33% (East with the king or ace and no jack, and no ace of diamonds). Playing the queen is about 33% (East with J of clubs not the ace or king). The former gains when they "err" in not switching; the latter gains when they "err" in switching.

 

See b). Imo we are making "for sure" when East has Ax or Kx. So nearer 66%, as long as we don't muff the heart suit.

 

e) Meckstroth often prefers a psychological play over a technical play and this hand was, in my opinion, no exception.

 

Agreed. Look at the hand again. A low club is not exactly automatic. There may well have been a slow lead. It's quite plausible to lead a top club - if dummy comes down with club length, there is still time to switch to a diamond.

 

f) I don't think a diamond blockage plays a big part.

 

Agreed. See b).

 

See above.

[lamford]

Firstly, leading a minor against this auction is a pretty big statement, so why should East switch.

If he correctly judges that the queen of clubs will be declarer's ninth trick (and South might have had one more spade and one fewer heart for example) then he may switch. Also, Woolsey wrote a learned article about "three-apart" leads which are just bad. On this auction, I would not want to lead from AJxx(x), KTxx(x) or Q9xx(x). If West is of the Woolsey school, then you are comparing AKxxx with KJxxx. Interestingly a short simulation had leading AJxxx beating it once out of 24 hands, KJxxx beating it 4 times and AKxxx beating it 5 times. And, no, I do not have time to extend that, but I think wank makes some valid points.

 

Also a passive minor suit lead is not that unattractive on this auction. Better than 9xx(x) in a major, especially against opponents who are pretty much always, in the King School of Bridge, going to play nine-card major suit fits in 3NT. And you know from inspection that they were not dealt an obvious major-suit lead.

 

But, overall, I would just say that the queen was right because it worked and low failed. And because Meckstroth gained 11 IMPs.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

A false premise. I've seen the hand now and players of this level will usually underlead AKxxx, unless holding ♦A.

Are you saying that West would look for another suit lead instead of leading from his 5 card suit :

A J 9 6 x or K J 9 6 x

which occurs twice as often as A K x 6 x .

 

I don't think I denied a lead from A K x 6 x ... I just took the 67% chance on my play of the duck to the ten ( post # 6 ) .

[lamford]

Are you saying that West would look for another suit lead instead of leading from his 5 card suit :

A J 9 6 x or K J 9 6 x

which occurs twice as often as A K x 6 x .

I think almost all Wests would look for another lead rather than leading from a four-card suit of AJ9x. And I think some Wests would consider looking for another lead rather than leading from a five-card suit of AJ9xx, especially with a strong NT on their right.

[Fluffy]

I would insta lead AJ9xx, do people really refrain from leading a strong 5 card suit in this bidding?

[gnasher]

I would insta lead AJ9xx, do people really refrain from leading a strong 5 card suit in this bidding?

Me too.

[gnasher]

And I think some Wests would consider looking for another lead rather than leading from a five-card suit of AJ9xx, especially with a strong NT on their right.

Having more of the opponents strength on the right makes the low club lead safer, because it reduces the chance that you'll find Hxx in dummy and the other honour in declarer's hand. Though I woudn't be looking for much logic in the thoughts of someone who'd think of not leading AJ9xx in an unbid suit against 3NT.

[paulg]

Edit: having just seen the hand, I wonder if the opening lead was slow (which Meck would pick up on, for sure). I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning speculated on by the analyst at all.

Were there any leads that were not slow in these trials?

[GreenMan]

ISTR someone quoting Meckstroth (maybe a comment at the table relayed by the VG operator? Can't recall) saying the possibility of a diamond switch swung his choice of play.

[lamford]

Having more of the opponents strength on the right makes the low club lead safer, because it reduces the chance that you'll find Hxx in dummy and the other honour in declarer's hand. Though I woudn't be looking for much logic in the thoughts of someone who'd think of not leading AJ9xx in an unbid suit against 3NT.

Not so. Assuming the points are distributed, say, 15-10, the most likely distribution is Kx(x) on your right and Qx(x)on your left. Less likely is Qx(x) on your left and Kx(x) on your right. Coming in third is KQx on your right with xx(x) on your left, while fourth is KQx on your left with xx(x) on your right. Then we have the ones with partner having the K or Q of the suit. You may still need to find partner with an entry, and you know that West will know that any major suit entry which partner has may be neutralised. If West has the ace of diamonds, then he will not expect his partner to have an entry.

 

And I think that most would not lead from AJ9x without a fifth card, which is enough to make the queen the right play from dummy at trick one.

[PhilKing]

And I think that most would not lead from AJ9x without a fifth card, which is enough to make the queen the right play from dummy at trick one.

 

A lot players won't lead from a non-sequential four-card minor ever on this auction, so I don't see how this is relevant.

 

And from AKxx, were one to force me to lead the suit, I would lead high.

[lamford]

A lot players won't lead from a non-sequential four-card minor ever on this auction, so I don't see how this is relevant.

Because AJxx or AJ9x are holdings where low may gain over the queen, and West will probably not have those. Anyway we are told (admittedly hearsay) that Meckstroth played the queen because he was worried about a potential diamond switch, although you thought East would never find one when it was right.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjthak752dk6ct42&n=saq2hqt83dt93cq87&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1n(15-17)p3nppp]266|200|

Apologies if you know the hand, from NewinBridge, and apologies if it has already appeared - I did not see it on a quick look through. The auction was, surprisingly, the same in both rooms, and the lead was the same, the six of clubs. Two world-class players played differently here. Which card do you play from dummy at trick one and why?[/hv]

Thank you, Paul. IMO ducking is the percentage play, because, as everyone says:

• If LHO has ♦A and RHO can win a ♣ trick and RHO finds the diamond switch, then you will normally lose at least 2 X ♣ and 3 X ♦. Hence if LHO has ♦A, then the main hope, at double-dummy, is to play LHO for ♣AK as well. If RHO has doubleton ♣AK/AJ/KJ, he has little choice but to switch to a ♦.
• If RHO has ♦A, then ducking the ♣ wins when LHO has ♣J and when RHO has ♣AKJ tripleton or doubleton ♣AJ/KJ or a singleton ♣.

[nige1]

I would insta lead AJ9xx, do people really refrain from leading a strong 5 card suit in this bidding?

A player in hearing-aid radio-contact with a friendly kibitzer, might try ♣J :)