[Fluffy]

---

LHO leads ♥5 (4th best) opponents unknown but probably advanced wich minor should you tackle first playing MPs?

[paulg]

I'd play clubs at trick two. The finesse is better odds than the 3-3 diamond break and I go down fewer when the diamonds are not favourable. I think the auction and first trick will mean that they will almost always play spades when they get in, so exposing the likely spade weakness through club strength is not an issue.

[helene_t]

I must be missing something. Since to me this looks like a textbook example of combining the chances. Test the diamonds and if they don't break, try the club finesse.

[32519]

+ 1 for Helene_t

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2012-July-10, 05:43, said:

I must be missing something. Since to me this looks like a textbook example of combining the chances. Test the diamonds and if they don't break, try the club finesse.

If that were the "right" answer then Fluffy would not have posted the hand. Since this is on the forums we can surmise that the trick here is probably to get out for fewer undertricks than the rest. Of course Fluffy might just be playing games with us but I am pretty confident that he would have found this line. If playing on clubs before diamonds really is good MP play then it just reinforces the "MP is not real bridge" argument I hear from time to time (one of the best players in the local club said this to me only Saturday).

[EricK]

Against a lot of opponents can we not combine our chances by looking for a count signal on the first 2 rounds of ♦ (or even the first round)?

[helene_t]

hmm Poul's plan beats mine when the club finesse is on and the diamonds break. (Poul 13, Helene 9).

Poul's plan beats mine when the club finesse if off and the diamonds don't break (Poul 8, Helene 7).

My plan wins when the diamonds break and the ♣K is stiff offside (Poul 8, Helene 13).

My plan wins when the diamonds break and the club finesse is off (Poul 8, Helene 9).

We are equal when the diamonds don't break and the club finesse is on (Poul 11, Helene 11).

Poul wins more often than I do so maybe he is right.

But even at MP my plan could still be best if a substantial part of the field is in a different contract, or get a spade lead.

[paulg]

helene_t, on 2012-July-10, 06:38, said:

But even at MP my plan could still be best if a substantial part of the field is in a different contract, or get a spade lead.

In this specific case it does look like a normal contract and even the weak notrumpers auction, 1NT-3NT, is liable to get the same lead.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-10, 06:08, said:

If that were the "right" answer then Fluffy would not have posted the hand. Since this is on the forums we can surmise that the trick here is probably to get out for fewer undertricks than the rest. Of course Fluffy might just be playing games with us but I am pretty confident that he would have found this line. If playing on clubs before diamonds really is good MP play then it just reinforces the "MP is not real bridge" argument I hear from time to time (one of the best players in the local club said this to me only Saturday).

Admittedly it sounds weird but after some crude number crunching, I think hooking the club first does gain more often. At the table I might spend a few moments observing the ops, the guy with the ♣K may be a bit more tense.

[marcD]

i would have to trust a lot my table presence not to play on clubs at trick 2 : basically playing on diamonds trying to combine chances is better at mp about 20% of the times (dia 3-3 + k club offside ) while we seem to play the field contract and i have no reason to believe that the heart lead is not normal

[dkham]

I'd play diamonds first just to try and make the contract. Other tables may have got a spade lead.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2012-July-10, 06:48, said:

At the table I might spend a few moments observing the ops, the guy with the ♣K may be a bit more tense.

This is illegal according to most interpretations of the laws.

[TimG]

paulg, on 2012-July-10, 06:44, said:

In this specific case it does look like a normal contract and even the weak notrumpers auction, 1NT-3NT, is liable to get the same lead.

Maybe it went 1♦-2N-3N at some other tables.

Maybe opening leader has equal length in the majors and guessed wrong this time.

They have 8 spades and 7 hearts, maybe opening leader made a poor opening lead choice for whatever reason.

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2012-July-10, 07:28, said:

This is illegal according to most interpretations of the laws.

Really? Which laws and whose interpretations? I know that I cannot look at how they sort their cards or where they pull them from, but I thought that ordinary behavioral clues are entirely AI.

[gwnn]

Behavioral clues are AI, but specifically looking for them is illegal.

74C5 "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*)."

A longish thread, http://www.bridgebas...s-with-screens/ ... What "intently" really means is not really established.

edit: I overplayed my hand with my first post but still something to keep in mind.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2012-July-10, 10:22, said:

A longish thread, http://www.bridgebas...s-with-screens/ ... What "intently" really means is not really established.

I don't think that's a fair summary of the discussion. The meaning of "intently" was already known to almost everyone who participated in the discussion. A small number of people argued that it meant the same as "intentionally", but they were beaten into silence by English-speakers wielding dictionaries.

[benlessard]

Playing Clubs first is clear cut.

If the club finesse is on it doesnt matter what you do unless a fairly big misdefense 50%

If the club finesse is off and D break 16%.

If the club finesse is off and D dont break 34% its costing you an extra under trick in almost all the case (even if S are 5-3 and they lead S at the other table).

So you need more that 50% of people not in the same contract or not getting the same lead to even think about maximizing making the contract at hte cost of 1/2 odds of getting a bad MP score.

Here many people will be in 3Nt and even if they got a S lead maximizing the odds of making the contract doesnt compensate twice the odds of the extra undertrick

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2012-July-10, 11:11, said:

I don't think that's a fair summary of the discussion. The meaning of "intently" was already known to almost everyone who participated in the discussion. A small number of people argued that it meant the same as "intentionally", but they were beaten into silence by English-speakers wielding dictionaries.

Some people argued that intently is intentionally, some others argued that it means 'for a long time' and some others sait that it is eagerly. I think spending a few moments with the sole purpose of observing which opponent is more nervous comes dangerously close to 'intently' either way.

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2012-July-10, 11:43, said:

Some people argued that intently is intentionally, some others argued that it means 'for a long time' and some others sait that it is eagerly. I think spending a few moments with the sole purpose of observing which opponent is more nervous comes dangerously close to 'intently' either way.

To me, looking "intently" implies an abnormally high level of attention. I don't think a casual glance of perhaps 2-3 seconds rises to this level.

I know we have directors here, have you ever ruled on a situation of this type?

[gwnn]

Sorry for derailing your thread Fluffy.