Play for the drop or finesse?

[Dinarius]

The contract is four hearts.

 

Dummy holds; ♥ K,8,7,5

 

Declarer holds; ♥ A,J,10,6,2

 

West leads ♠K, having overcalled the suit once.

 

I took the view that, having overcalled ♠, West was slightly more likely to have shortage in ♥

 

So, I decided to play small to the ♥K first.

 

West played ♥9 on my ♥2. I won with the ♥K and played the ♥5, East playing small to both tricks.

 

Do you now play West for exactly ♥Q,9 and play for the drop, or do you finesse, playing East for ♥Q,4,3?

 

In other words, does the forced play of the ♥9 by West look like a singleton or not?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[helene_t]

Yes I agree. The only argument against it is that maybe the overcall suggests he has values which makes hime more likely to hold the queen. That would depend on their overcall style.

[Dinarius]

Yes I agree. The only argument against it is that maybe the overcall suggests he has values which makes hime more likely to hold the queen. That would depend on their overcall style.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Yes, I obviously thought too much about it and finessed, losing to ♥Q,9 doubleton.

 

Not 'playing with the room' (who were "Eight ever, nine never", simply playing for the drop) the loss of an overtrick cost me a duck at Pairs scoring. Everyone else was making 11 tricks.

 

D.

[1eyedjack]

Ah well, next time you will be getting a top.

[The_Badger]

Hello Dinarius,

 

Plenty of expert players would have done what you did too :) That is: Taken a view.

 

As you say "Eight Ever, Nine Never". But never say never.

 

And as 1eyedjack said: Ah well, next time you will be getting a top.

 

The only thing to add is that playing against the room, so to speak, is a good ploy if you feel that you are well behind at Pairs. I have won many a Pairs evening by swindling a few tops in the last 8 boards or so. Otherwise, steady as she goes applies, and playing with the room if you have felt your session has gone well.

[The_Badger]

[Duplicated]

[Finch]

I don't understand the phrase 'the forced play of the 9'

The only two holdings that are relevant are Q9 or 9 singleton. There's no difference between seeing the 9 or the 3; the 'forced play of the 3' is equally from 3 singleton or Q3. Nothing else is relevant.

[kuhchung]

okay my math is pretty weak and I see helene has responded, but I thought this sort of thinking was incorrect unless the discrepancy was pretty large

 

https://sites.google.com/site/psmartinsite/Home/bridge-articles/the-monty-hall-trap

 

(below solution 3)

[johnu]

I wouldn't place much emphasis on whether west is more likely to hold the ♥Q because of the overcall since it is unlikely to make any difference whether there is an overall or not.

 

You say west overcalled but you didn't say how many spades your side has. This makes a difference in trying to calculate odds whether your side has 1 spade or 6+ spades. This is a bridge calculator for determining exactly your question http://rpbridge.net/cgi-bin/xsb2.pl

[Dinarius]

Thanks again for the replies and for the above link.

 

On the play of the second ♥ from Dummy East follows, so I have now seen all three spot cards. Only the ♥Q is missing.

 

So, I think that this line from solution 1. here is key:

 

"That means you can counter the bias by pretending that East has only one extra unknown card instead of two. You cash the club king and lead toward the ace. East follows. Now he has zero extra unknown cards. So it's a toss-up. The finesse and the drop are equally likely to fail (or to succeed, for those of you with positive attitudes)."

 

In short, I think that it is indeed a "toss up" and that "eight ever, nine never" is as good a guide as any, despite the play of the nine on the first ♥.

 

Pity. I thought I was being more analytical.

 

D.

[Stephen Tu]

I think you are not really getting the point of the Monty Hall trap article. That is pointing out biases in information gleaned from the opening lead in a situation where opponent is leading vs. NT, doesn't have sequences to lead from, and is assumed biased toward leading from their longest suit. After all if west is on lead and will usually lead longest suit, and if east happened to be on lead and will lead their longest suit, you aren't supposed to conclude to play in your suit for opening leader to be short while declarer at other table who randomly declares from other side is supposed to finesse the other way just because opening leader happens to be longer in the suit led. The article is just showing how to incorporate these biases into your analysis and correct for them. The fact that a person is longer in a suit they led than their partner vs. NT is supposed to not be particularly informative.

 

Overcall in spades combined with lead of K from presumably some sequence doesn't have these biases. I think finesse is percentage.

[nullve]

[deleted]

[kuhchung]

I think you are not really getting the point of the Monty Hall trap article. That is pointing out biases in information gleaned from the opening lead in a situation where opponent is leading vs. NT, doesn't have sequences to lead from, and is assumed biased toward leading from their longest suit. After all if west is on lead and will usually lead longest suit, and if east happened to be on lead and will lead their longest suit, you aren't supposed to conclude to play in your suit for opening leader to be short while declarer at other table who randomly declares from other side is supposed to finesse the other way just because opening leader happens to be longer in the suit led. The article is just showing how to incorporate these biases into your analysis and correct for them. The fact that a person is longer in a suit they led than their partner vs. NT is supposed to not be particularly informative.

 

Overcall in spades combined with lead of K from presumably some sequence doesn't have these biases. I think finesse is percentage.

 

Thanks!