Commonwealth Challenge

[MrAce]

That's interesting, so in your opinion experts defend perfectly and that is what we should base our lines on? Or is your opinion simply that we should change the expert forum to the theoretical forum?

 

Actually this what you said is something I also wanted to mention but forgot in the heat of the argument. As I said, when there are so many things all over the place that does not make sense, one can miss the most important thing. Expert defense or declarer play does not mean GIB in godlike mode. For example this is why I like it when Andy (Gnasher) or Rainer besides you write their line of play or defense. Sometimes they cater for the effects of alternative lines over the defenders, and this makes it more real to me than declaring vs DD, godlike machines (or now "A.K.A Commonwealth defenders).

[lamford]

That's interesting, so in your opinion experts defend perfectly and that is what we should base our lines on? Or is your opinion simply that we should change the expert forum to the theoretical forum?

 

 

 

That's interesting, how can drawing trumps and taking a spade finesse ever be better than running all your clubs and coming down to this ending:

 

AQ

x

xx

--

 

x

AK9

T

 

I confess I made the assumption that declarer never took the spade finesse, and assumed the spade was offside, so the declarer would duck a diamond when there were two out. It was a tedious enough task comparing "the spade finesse" with "other lines" as it was. I have gone through the 24 hands again, and playing as you do is at least as good as the spade finesse, provided that you revert to the spade finesse when you are not sure to make the contract otherwise. I am beginning to think Phil King's belief that ducking the initial diamond is right, but I have no feel for the percentage of the time West has seven diamonds. My setting of 6-7 diamonds may not be the correct one and the times that the diamond was ruffed were obviously fatal.

 

For example, one of the hands, board 17 (and I see, very similarly board 21), reached this ending:

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h9dtc&w=skhdqjc&n=saqhd6c&e=s9hqd7c]300|300[/hv]

I assumed you threw East in with a heart, here, but you now say that you would take the spade finesse when there is no diamond discard from East. That was one (in fact two) of the three differences. I gave this as a win for the finesse and a loss for the squeeze/endplay, but that might have been a wrong approach. And no, I don't think that it should be the theoretical forum, and practical issues are very important. I can quite believe that a good card-reader will sniff out the ending often enough to make running the trumps right.

 

One final thought is that an aggressive West might have only KQJxx in diamonds. That may throw your calculations out. Given that this particular West might well bid 4D with seven, I am sure he would consider 3D against a FG auction with KQJxx to take up some room. I know a few players who would for sure.

[PhantomSac]

No, because you can go off on lines with the king of spades right by attempting the endplay on East. I assumed that you guess the play half the time where one layout works and one does not.

 

That's interesting, if you assumed that my line worked half the time where one layout works and one does not, then how can my line make 6 times out of 24 while the spade finesse works 9 times out of 24? That is not possible obviously, are you lying again?

 

For instance, if the spade finesse works 9 times and you have me guessing that half the time, you have me guessing that 4.5 times. That is not possible. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you had me making 5 times that the SK is on. That means when the spade finesse was off (15 times), you had me making only 1 time, though you had me "guessing" the endplay line half the time. Really, it's only going to work 1 out of 15 times? Interesting.

 

If you had me guessing the play half the time where one layout works and one does not, it could not be that the finesse works 9 times and I only make 6 times. I think you are making things up again and being intellectually dishonest. Why did you bother posting this play problem?

 

Your line does have the option of playing for the SK to be on in the endgame. If you are going to do that whenever there is no alternative, then both lines are the same.

 

No, they are not the same. There is a non zero % chance that RHO pitches a diamond in which case I will often have a risk free way to make it in the end game when the spade finesse is off, as my last post indicated. Do you not see that this means coming down to that endgame is clearly superior to taking the finesse immediately? Are you willing to admit that you were wrong?

[PhantomSac]

I confess I made the assumption that declarer never took the spade finesse, and assumed the spade was offside, so the declarer would duck a diamond when there were two out.

 

But I thought you said this:

 

I assumed that you guess the play half the time where one layout works and one does not.

 

Don't those two statements contradict each other?

 

I have gone through the 24 hands again, and playing as you do is at least as good as the spade finesse, provided that you revert to the spade finesse when you are not sure to make the contract otherwise

 

Ok, great. I agree that if you have the defense always pitching correctly, and me misguessing most of the endings when I don't hook a spade, I should hook the spade at the ending. Do you think anyone thinks otherwise in those conditions? Those are not real life conditions though.

 

I am beginning to think ducking the diamond is right, but I have no feel for the percentage of the time West has seven diamonds.

 

But why do you now think that? You said in your 24 board simulation, ducking the diamond only made five times out of 24, even worse than me misguessing most endings and not taking a spade hook! You also think that you have no edge in figuring out anything from their discarding since the pitch perfectly, so ducking a diamond seems like a horrible line (risking the diamond ruff, and not guessing the squeeze at the end, as you said sometimes you have to play the SA and sometimes the HAK).

 

Do you now think you have an edge in figuring out stuff from their discards? If that's true then is it possible that you will have an edge in reaching the 5 card ending I outlined and sometimes endplaying them rather than finessing?

[PhantomSac]

 

For example, one of the hands, board 17, reached this ending:

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h9dtc&w=skhdqjc&n=saqhd6c&e=s9hqd7c]300|300[/hv]

I assumed you threw East in, here, but you now say that you would take the spade finesse when there is no diamond discard from East. That was one of the three differences. I gave this as a win for the finesse and a loss for the squeeze/endplay, but that might have been a wrong approach.

 

That's interesting since I specifically wrote:

 

If there are THREE diamonds outstanding you will pretty much know that LHO has 2 and RHO has 1.

 

AND

 

In real life if you think LHO might be down to 1 diamond or 3 diamonds in this position 100 % of the time because it is the COMMONWEALTH GAMES, well that's absolutely retarded, I'll say 99 % + they won't.

 

So in fact, based on what I wrote I would of course play a spade in this position. Notice, that this is a push vs the finesse since the spade was on, but if the SK had been on my RIGHT I would make when the SK is off.

 

I would miss the endplay if LHO was down to 3 diamonds, and RHO had Kx of spades and a heart left. That would be nice double dummy defense by LHO to keep THREE diamonds in that case (as I said in my post, if you bothered to read it and try to learn something about bridge). However, in that case the spade finesse would have been off anyways, so I lost nothing compared to your line. And diamonds would be 7-1 so I didn't lose anything compared to ducking either.

 

But like I said, if you think you have no edge in reading the cards at the end since they are perfect (and you don't seem to understand what perfect is, on board 17 they forced me to make it based on what I said, best defense would have been for LHO to stiff his diamond very early, in that case I would surely play for 7-1 diamonds and now go down with the SK off. The general theme is that LHO should keep 3 with 7 diamonds and 1 diamond with 6 very early if they want to be perfect).

 

What happened in the real hand is very typical, LHO immediately pitched down to a doubleton diamond then pitched some other stuff. RHO actually pitched their diamond at some point which I agree is a bad play but will definitely happen a decent amount of the time. But for LHO to hold any number of diamonds that's not 2 is very difficult, especially when that number is 1 and he has to do it early in the play. You will have a substantial edge in real life play against anyone in the world if you assume that they came down to 2 diamonds, and if that is true then you have a massive edge in this endgame. But even if you have doubts then just take the finesse later.

[lamford]

Nice to have you back posting in this thread.

If that is the end of the Cold War it is welcomed.

[lamford]

But even if you have doubts then just take the finesse later.

I agree with this, and if you do that, then your line is better assuming that you read the ending more often than you get it wrong. The declarer in question has won some national events, and was partnering PhilKing. I still do not believe how he went off, but it seems from all the commentary on BBO archives that he just miscounted the hearts. It would be nice to get confirmation of this.

[PhantomSac]

@PhilKing

 

I think the difference in our opinion on ducking vs winning the first trick is our nationality. I would think that 7 diamonds is more common than 6 and you think 7 diamonds would usually bid 4 and 6 would usually bid 3. Knowing your opp definitely helps, ducking is a very nice line if you are confident on that read. England/Australia (PART OF THE CW!) definitely have some of the most aggressive preempting experts compared to NA and other Euros like Italy/France/Poland/etc.

[PhantomSac]

I agree with this, and if you do that, then your line is better assuming that you read the ending more often than you get it wrong. The declarer in question has won some national events, and was partnering PhilKing. I still do not believe how he went off, but it seems from all the commentary on BBO archives that he just miscounted the hearts. It would be nice to get confirmation of this.

 

Just goes to show that people make mistakes, even experts :) I would hope no one would judge me by my worst hands, there are too many and they are so bad. I think that's true of everyone heh.

[MrAce]

I agree with this, and if you do that, then your line is better assuming that you read the ending more often than you get it wrong. The declarer in question has won some national events, and was partnering PhilKing. I still do not believe how he went off, but it seems from all the commentary on BBO archives that he just miscounted the hearts. It would be nice to get confirmation of this.

 

You mean Gunnar Hallberg? He is a terrific player as I heard. But that shows he is only a human after all. Or perhaps V.G operator mistake.

[lamford]

There's quite a lot to be said for ducking the diamond.

I have come back to this now, and redone 24 hands with West always having exactly six diamonds. They are a different set of course, and ducking the diamond comes out way on top. Unbelievably, the contract was now makeable on all 24 hands, but only for sure by ducking the opening lead. If the defence continue diamonds, you can be forced to guess almost all the time. My revised estimate now is that both the spade finesse and endplay/squeeze line are around 40%, and ducking the lead is around 60% - you will play for East to have the king of spades and West to have the diamond guard, and play it as double squeeze. You will probably go off when West has spades and diamonds guarded and East hearts because you will play for East to have been squeezed. So, I must eat humble pie, and what I originally thought was the best line is probably the worst. It was rather better than the line chosen at the table. Of course, we need to multiply that 60% by the chance of West having exactly six diamonds. If that is under 67%, then running some clubs and falling back on the spade finesse is probably right again.

[PhantomSac]

If you know the diamonds are 6-2 the other line goes up significantly. You make when LHO has 2 hearts or the SK or 3 small hearts without the QJT. Let's go back to this position:

 

AQ

x

xx

--

 

x

AK9

T

 

We play the AK of hearts. Now LHO must be down to 2 diamonds since we know the count so he pitches down to 1 major suit card and we throw a diamond. If he is down to a heart then if he had the SK he has pitched it. If not, we are down. But if he is down to a spade we are going to make it whether it is the king or not as if there are 2 spades out spades are 1-1, if there are 3 spades out there is only 1 heart out and we must assume RHO has it (else we cannot make) and we endplay righty.

 

Ofc if I knew diamonds were 6-2 I would duck the diamond for sure since I think 60 % is a wildly unrealistic estimate of the chances we would make it in that case in the real world.

[lamford]

You mean Gunnar Hallberg? He is a terrific player as I heard. But that shows he is only a human after all. Or perhaps V.G operator mistake.

I don't think Gunnar was the declarer. The hand is on Vugraph Archives as Scotland v England, Board 5:

 

2014-09-09 M2 2014 CNBC Glasgow RR5_13 Scotland

MURDOCH-SIME v

SMALL-KING

 

I tried to put a link up but that was too small (no pun intended). Gunnar is indeed a terrific player, but Small is very strong as well, and I did suspect a VG operator mistake, but the commentary suggests otherwise:

 

vugraphzft: minus one

paulg: Did Small miscount the hearts?

vugraphzft: There was an expletive

vugraphzft: I assume so

 

paulg: it was a pity because Small had played the hand very well to that point

vugraphzft: (South upset with self re last hand)

[lamford]

Ofc if I knew diamonds were 6-2 I would duck the diamond for sure since I think 60 % is a wildly unrealistic estimate of the chances we would make it in that case in the real world.

Do you think it is too low or too high? I would expect to make it more than that, as I will always make it when East has the king of spades but might well go off on the actual layout.

[lamford]

If you know the diamonds are 6-2 the other line goes up significantly. You make when LHO has 2 hearts or the SK or 3 small hearts without the QJT. Let's go back to this position:

True, but you also make it when diamonds are 6-2 when West has three hearts only, by ducking the opening lead. Always if you can read the ending. There is no layout that can hold the position.

[PhantomSac]

It's way too low

[PhantomSac]

Do you think it is too low or too high? I would expect to make it more than that, as I will always make it when East has the king of spades but might well go off on the actual layout.

 

For instance, how are you going to go off on this layout? Unless you play LHO to have 6 diamonds and 5 hearts you will make as they are forced to come down to Kx of spades and a diamond and thus only 2 hearts (if they come down to stiff king in spades even if you "misguess" you'll play the SA and the king will drop). It is when LHO has Kxxx of spades and pitches 2 spades and a heart that you might go down if you play him for 2461 instead.

[lamford]

Yes I agree you will make much more than 60% of the time. But I am not sure how much more. Take this ending:[hv=pc=n&s=s5hak9dc&w=sj8hjdqc&n=saqh8d6c&e=skhqt4c]300|300[/hv]

As I think you said, you will make when you cash the ace and king of hearts wherever the king of spades is. The only downside of this line is that if West can guard hearts and diamonds, you will go down, as you need to cash the ace of spades first in such lines; sometimes West will have three small hearts and you are cold again, or 10xx and not realise he should be guarding hearts. This line could be as high as 80% in practice. Of course, the defence can switch to a spade at trick two, which forces you to choose the double squeeze, and that appears to be best defence. I think you get to this ending:

[hv=pc=n&s=shak9dtc&w=skhjdqjc&n=sqh8da7c&e=sjhqt4c]300|300[/hv]

Now as the cards lie, you need to cash the ace and king of hearts, but if you swap the spade honours you need to play a diamond to the ace. Given that the king of spades is around 4:3 on to be with East, you will probably go down. Can you see a way of improving on this plan, which I think is no more than 60%?

 

When I went through the 24 hands - which took me several hours - I formed a quick opinion on which lines worked. I agree I did that very poorly, but it would have taken me longer if I had analysed every line in detail. And I posted it because it is was - and still is - a very interesting hand.

 

And what do you think the chances of six diamonds compared with seven are?

[lamford]

But why do you now think that? You said in your 24 board simulation, ducking the diamond only made five times out of 24

Looking back, that was because the second round got ruffed 16 times! So, my setting West to have six+ diamonds was the wrong approach, and a blunder, as the dealing program gave him a seventh diamond too often. It is not that great a program in that it just deals out the remaining cards that have not been fixed. As I did not allow West to have eight diamonds, he got seven far too often. Mea culpa. The correct approach for me was to do two sets with the chance of six diamonds in the correct ratio to the chance of seven diamonds. My feel is that PhilKing is right, and West will have exactly six diamonds maybe 90% of the time. Firstly he is more likely to have six than seven, and secondly he might bid 4D with seven, so a big parlay. I now confirm that I think the best line is to duck the diamond, second best to run the clubs and try to judge the endplay falling back on the spade finesse if it looks like the endplay will not work, and the third choice to take a spade finesse. What do I think are the true odds? I would estimate: Duck 63% (maybe 90% x 70%). Win and run trumps but be ready to fall back on spade finesse 50%. Draw trumps and take the spade finesse 40%

[lamford]

For instance, how are you going to go off on this layout?

So, if you duck the opening lead, and win the spade switch, what ending are you going to choose?

[PhilKing]

No, because you can go off on lines with the king of spades right by attempting the endplay on East.

 

I don't really get this - I thought THE PHANTOM had pretty much been established that this was not the case.

 

If the spade is onside, I thought you could only go off if someone had fourteen cards. I now think winning trick 1 is right because this is one of those weird compound thingies that works best without the count.

[PhantomSac]

I was analyzing if they continued diamonds.

 

If they switch to a spade it looks like we have to guess what squeeze to take in this position:

 

Q

x

Ax

--

 

--

AK9

x

--

 

That is no good. If we had the jack of clubs that probably wouldn't be a big deal since on a spade shift we could ruff a spade, CK, CA, spade ruff pull trumps and again go down when LHO had Kxxx of spades (unless we made an inspired guess) but make otherwise. But if we have to play the CK first we lose to Jxxx of clubs onside now which seems like a big deal.

 

Seems like a spade shift is best after all? I should not have trusted PhilKing :P But maybe I'm missing something obvious. Maybe 4-0 clubs onside isn't such a big deal with diamonds 6-2 also, dunno. But again, if we know diamonds are 6-2 the squeeze line becomes much better as we will know the count and can accurately strip squeeze righty if lefty has only 2 hearts or xxx, so maybe that is best. It's probably close since if they don't shift to a spade we are in great shape and if they do we're still in pretty decent shape.

[PhantomSac]

Phil are we wrong that you can't just claim on the spade shift, LHO might guard spades/diamonds or RHO might guard hearts/spades and in this case we actually won't be able to tell by their discards since they will basically be forced.

 

I think trying to isolate the spade menace is correct in that case, and had a very PhilKing-like thought that if they do shift to a spade and we ruff a spade maybe we should just play club to the ace and ruff a spade with the ten, risking Jx of clubs and 2 spades on our left in order to gain on 4-0 clubs onside (we will still have to guess which sqz in the end to play for). It would be the ultimate PhilKing line, risk going down on a diamond ruff and also on a spade overruff in order to have a near claim in the endgame and protect against 4-0 trumps :P

 

Edit: Also sry you lost in the semis, is there a bronze playoff?

Edited multiple times!

Edited September 13, 2014 by PhantomSac

[lamford]

I don't really get this - I thought THE PHANTOM had pretty much been established that this was not the case.

 

If the spade is onside, I thought you could only go off if someone had fourteen cards. I now think winning trick 1 is right because this is one of those weird compound thingies that works best without the count.

That was quite a few hours ago, and we have since agreed that, provided you reverted to the spade finesse when the endplay might not work, you would always make it when the spade was right. That prevents you making it quite a lot of the time when the king of spades is wrong, however. The downside of winning the diamond is when the diamonds are 6-2 and West has three hearts, when you have to duck, when you are 100% if you can see the opponents' cards. West will have three hearts over half the time, as his most likely shapes are 3-3-6-1, 2-3-6-2 and 3-2-6-2. I think the compound squeeze may indeed work better without the count in theory, provided you can read the ending, but the payoff to three hearts is too great.

[lamford]

I think trying to isolate the spade menace is correct in that case, and had a very PhilKing-like thought that if they do shift to a spade and we ruff a spade maybe we should just play club to the ace and ruff a spade with the ten, risking Jx of clubs and 2 spades on our left in order to gain on 4-0 clubs onside (we will still have to guess which sqz in the end to play for).

I like this line a lot. We will guess to play the double squeeze still with East having the spade guard, and West the diamond guard, but now we pick up Kxx with West, the actual layout. Brilliant idea and a great post.

 

One slight improvement. Is it better, after ruffing a spade, to play the king and ace of clubs before ruffing another spade? That loses on 4-0 trumps but gains when West is 2-3-6-2 with the jack of clubs, as we still have the double squeeze.

 

For what it is worth, I did 24 more hands, assuming diamonds are 6-2, and in 22 of them your new line worked. We have to discount that for diamonds 7-1, of course, but even so I think we are in to 85% territory.

Edited September 13, 2014 by lamford