Finesse or Drop?

[sfi]

The percentage analysis given above by a couple of folks is NOT correct at all. You can't simply add probabilities of non-mutually exclusive events.

 

You might want to be a bit more specific than that. Given that my analysis was about the only one that actually added probabilities, it sounds like you are disagreeing with what I wrote. I am interested to know where you think the errors lie.

[sfi]

If the situation is fifty-fifty (lacking information about) and you need finesse, can be applied the "Paul Lucacks" gadget as i indicated here: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66018-count-vs-restricted-choice/page__view__findpost__p__790905

 

This only works if you've chosen the card in question before finding out who has it. It is just a simplistic application of vacant spaces, similar to playing for queens to be split.

[Winstonm]

First thing to consider is that with either a start with the ace or the king, half the time when the suit is 4-0 you will have guessed wrong. Once both opponents follow suit, 4-0 breaks no longer matter. Now it is simply a matter of whether or not to play for the remaining cards to be divided 1-1 or 2-0, and half the 2-0 breaks will be offside.

 

Of course, when the opp follows to the next card with a low one, half of the remaining 2-0 breaks are eliminated.

[miamijd]

You might want to be a bit more specific than that. Given that my analysis was about the only one that actually added probabilities, it sounds like you are disagreeing with what I wrote. I am interested to know where you think the errors lie.

 

You're right ex ante. But that means nothing, because the only situation you care about is one where you see three small cards on the first two rounds and have to guess whether trump are 3-1 or 2-2. The stiff Qs and the 4-0s can be eliminated. So saying it's 57 to 56 or some such thing is not correct after we have determined that trump are not 4-0 and there is no stiff Q. Now the percentages are different.

 

This is where the so-called Law of Vacant Places helps you.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[sfi]

You're right ex ante. But that means nothing, because the only situation you care about is one where you see three small cards on the first two rounds and have to guess whether trump are 3-1 or 2-2. The stiff Qs and the 4-0s can be eliminated. So saying it's 57 to 56 or some such thing is not correct after we have determined that trump are not 4-0 and there is no stiff Q. Now the percentages are different.

 

This is where the so-called Law of Vacant Places helps you.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

Which I also described in my original post, so I'm still not sure where you believe the error in it lies.

[Lovera]

This only works if you've chosen the card in question before finding out who has it. It is just a simplistic application of vacant spaces, similar to playing for queens to be split.

Infact. If the choising card appear in a side you have to make impasse on the other side similarly when honors are divided (52% vs 48%).

[kenberg]

Terrence Reece wrote of a hand in which, playing against two little old ladies, he needed to find a queen in order to make a slam (grand I think). He had another suit of something like A10x in dummy opposite KQJ in hand. He led the J from hand and LHO hesitated for a little before playing small. He then led the J of the key suit from hand. This time LHO did not hesitate so he let it run, successfully.

 

I vaguely recall a Victor Mollo variant of this. One of the Managerie characters, probably Secretary Bird, brought charges against another, perhaps Charlie the Chimp. Lacking the hand, we can use this one..SB leads the T from his hand, CC briefly hitches and then plays low. SB has no doubt that CC would play low smoothly from Qx so he assumes that CC had a stiff spot and was being "cute" with the hesitation. He therefore goes up with the K and leads a spot back to the 9. losing to the Q. SB argued that CC was taking advantage of the fact that he, CC, was known to fake thinking on plays that required no thought and so this action of hitching when actually holding something of value was unethical.

 

I do not recall the outcome.

[dokoko]

IMO winning is better than playing "correctly". Even if every decent player will play low smoothly I have to consider the odds that the present opp is a non-decent one.

 

That said I guess most of the technical arguments are correct.

 

However, should my partner criticize me for preferring a 56% to a 58% line, he might as well look for a new partner.