[JLOGIC]

Say you have AK987 in dummy, Jx in your hand. This is a side suit and you need 4 tricks and no losers in a trump contract.

If you play AK, and the ten or queen drops on your left, you are in a restricted choice situation obviously.

Stronger is to play the ace, cross to your hand and lead the jack. Now if you are playing against 99.9 % of the bridge population, they will play the Q with QT. Of course, this is still restricted choice, but most people cannot psychologically play the ten under the jack in that spot.

So, if they play the ten you ruffing finesse and it's 100 %. If they play the queen, you play for QTx as a specific 3-3 is more liekly than a specific 4-2. Of course, this is only a very tiny edge you're gaining from all of this. The real edge is if they play the ten you know what to do, and if they play the queen you can use other factors in the hand to decide. Typically other factors would not outweigh restricted choice if you had played AK even if theyre strong, but in this case you can use the other factors on the Q and maybe gain a bigger edge.

Now, some people are so bad that under AK they would never play the Q with QT when you play the jack so you also gain nothing against them, but they would have to be very weak.

[aguahombre]

Blabbermouth.

Actually, great forum stuff.

[Phil]

You need to tell us how The Man got this right ATT. Great article as usual.

[CarlRitner]

Say you have AK987 in dummy, Jx in your hand. This is a side suit and you need 4 tricks and no losers in a trump contract.

Understanding this statement is problematic for me.
If I need 4 tricks and no losers, can I afford to lose one trick or not?

"No losers" implies I need to win all 5 tricks.
"Need 4 tricks" implies I can have one loser.

[Phil]

 CarlRitner, on 2012-August-23, 10:29, said:

Say you have AK987 in dummy, Jx in your hand. This is a side suit and you need 4 tricks and no losers in a trump contract.

Understanding this statement is problematic for me.
If I need 4 tricks and no losers, can I afford to lose one trick or not?

"No losers" implies I need to win all 5 tricks.
"Need 4 tricks" implies I can have one loser.

On the actual hand (to illustrate a point):

- If you lose a trick in this suit, that's four for the defense.
- If you only make only three tricks, you'll lose trick 13 instead of (say) trick 8.

[ArtK78]

 CarlRitner, on 2012-August-23, 10:29, said:

Say you have AK987 in dummy, Jx in your hand. This is a side suit and you need 4 tricks and no losers in a trump contract.

Understanding this statement is problematic for me.
If I need 4 tricks and no losers, can I afford to lose one trick or not?

"No losers" implies I need to win all 5 tricks.
"Need 4 tricks" implies I can have one loser.

This is a side suit at a trump contract. You can ruff one round of the suit in your attempt to establish the other four cards as winners. You cannot give up a trick in the suit. Your goal is to win 4 tricks in this suit other than the round that you ruff.

[TimG]

 CarlRitner, on 2012-August-23, 10:29, said:

Say you have AK987 in dummy, Jx in your hand. This is a side suit and you need 4 tricks and no losers in a trump contract.

Understanding this statement is problematic for me.
If I need 4 tricks and no losers, can I afford to lose one trick or not?

"No losers" implies I need to win all 5 tricks.
"Need 4 tricks" implies I can have one loser.

Is it a "loser" if you ruff one of the cards in this suit? Is it a "trick" in this suit? I'd say "no" and "no".

It seems clear to me that the objective is to take four tricks in this suit while ruffing at most once.

[kenrexford]

So, what you are doing is removing from LHO one of his concerns. If you were to lead the Jack toward the Ace and King, he would think that covering simply sets up an obvious double-finesse. However, if you clear the Ace, you then take away that risk and induce a cover on pure principles.

So, I start thinking through LHO's situation. If he has count, he should see this as a strange move and might think this through enough to make an intelligent duck of the Jack. However, that thought process probably also requires some time, which itself might be a tell. In other words, a slot small or even a slow 10 might also give you an extra chance.

[JLOGIC]

 Phil, on 2012-August-23, 10:22, said:

You need to tell us how The Man got this right ATT. Great article as usual.

I have not talked to him about it but I will tell you 100 %:

He knew diamonds were 5-4 (one guy overcalled, another guy jump raised).
He knew the spade count

Ergo, the club count would give you a full count. The opp was nice enough to give honest count in clubs when he played a club up. Yes, the guy might play the 8 at trick 3 with 4 (udca), but far more likely by probably 10:1 is the guy gave honest club count.

Therefore, he knew he was 1345.

Had the guy gave false club count, he probably would have won the event. Take that for what it's worth.

There was another hand that bluecalm was asking me about, hemant had AQJTxxx in hand opp xx. He lost a ruff already. He then dropped the HK. How did he know? Pretty simple, the opponent ruffed with the 9. Good play with 9x, but not something people do very often, so K9 was indicated.

Bridge is this simple for good declarers if you do not randomize well enough. Conversely, most people even if they are good are not willing to take inferences like this and make anti percentage plays because they are suspicious. Just believe in these things until you have reason not to verse any opp.

[han]

On the second hand that you were talking about, he would have to ruff with the 9 from 94 since dummy could beat the 4. However, when he led a heart from dummy, his RHO played the 4! That leaves his LHO with 8, 9, 98, K9 or K8. The first two are much less likely given the 5-2 spade split, so now it is percentage to play for the drop. But if LHO (who probably always follows lowest) plays the 8 instead of the 4, then LHO is marked with 94 so Hemant would finesse.

It was board 29 btw. I don't know how to find a link (help?) but it is a really great hand about how people play their spots and how you can use that. You shouldn't be writing in public about these tricks Justin, some of my opponents will read this!

Regarding the first hand you mentioned, the fact that people signal count honestly in such a situation is unbelievable, but true. Every time I am vugraph operator I am amazed at how honestly people signal, even top players. The players that are able to exploit this should be able to win a lot.

[Phil]

 han, on 2012-August-24, 08:36, said:

It was board 29 btw. I don't know how to find a link (help?) but it is a really great hand about how people play their spots and how you can use that.

http://worldbridge.o...F.939&qphase=FF

[han]

Ah thanks Phil!

By the way, what do you think about the auction at the other table? North opened 3H and east was in a difficult spot. Was overcalling 3NT clear, or too much? The commentators did not agree.

[Phil]

 han, on 2012-August-24, 08:36, said:

On the second hand that you were talking about, he would have to ruff with the 9 from 94 since dummy could beat the 4. However, when he led a heart from dummy, his RHO played the 4! That leaves his LHO with 8, 9, 98, K9 or K8. The first two are much less likely given the 5-2 spade split, so now it is percentage to play for the drop. But if LHO (who probably always follows lowest) plays the 8 instead of the 4, then LHO is marked with 94 so Hemant would finesse.

After RHO plays the 4, LHO can only have K98, 98, K9, or 9. K98 doesn't matter. With singleton 9 in many cases (like this one), he's giving declarer an extra entry to finesse partner twice (although there are some spy v spy considerations). So 98 v K9 seem like the main combos, and RC says drop. This ignores some inferences in the bidding which may or may not be relevant.

If RHO were to play the 8, then LHO now can hold K94, 94, K9 or 9. Toss out K94 and 9 for aforementioned reasons and it seems like a toss up between 94 and K9, although it depends if a tired RHO in the late stages of a KO final is sharp enough to realize the importance of popping 8 from 84 at this point. If he's not then finessing looks better playing for 94/K8.

[Phil]

 han, on 2012-August-24, 08:56, said:

Ah thanks Phil!

By the way, what do you think about the auction at the other table? North opened 3H and east was in a difficult spot. Was overcalling 3NT clear, or too much? The commentators did not agree.

I don't like 3N with a bare 15, no great trick source and a heart stopper that cannot be held up.

But I dislike 3♥ a whole lot more!

[TimG]

I like 3♥. I think it gives the opponents more room to get things wrong (as happened here). 4♥ has fewer ways to work.

4♥ is more likely to be making the last guess; over 3♥ the opponents more likely get to guess.

I'm not saying that 3♥ is clearly better than 4♥. It might not be better at all. But, I do think it has merit.

[JLOGIC]

 han, on 2012-August-24, 08:36, said:

On the second hand that you were talking about, he would have to ruff with the 9 from 94 since dummy could beat the 4. However, when he led a heart from dummy, his RHO played the 4! That leaves his LHO with 8, 9, 98, K9 or K8. The first two are much less likely given the 5-2 spade split, so now it is percentage to play for the drop. But if LHO (who probably always follows lowest) plays the 8 instead of the 4, then LHO is marked with 94 so Hemant would finesse.

Yeah, that is not true at all though. In that spot I would play for a falsecard from 84 way more often than someone ruffing with 94.

Let's put it this way han. If they ruff with the 9 then put up the 8, you know one of them is falsecarding. Which falsecard is more likely, putting up the top spot when they lead up and you know they will have to decide whether to drop your partners stiff king, or ruffing 9 from 94 earlier?

I would say that vs a good player the 8/4 thing is closer to restricted choice in general. It is much more common than 9 from 94. So I disagree with what you are saying. You have to know the level of your opponents, and people definitely play the highest spot a lot when it is a situation where their partner has the stiff K if they are in the finals of a world championship, in fact they probably do it too often.

Knowing how to judge these things is very important and jsut requires experience vs various levels of players and consciously watching what they are doing even if it doesn't matter. To me it is a no brainer if they ruff with the 9 and then play the 8 to go up with the ace, in fact I would think that would be the most common scenario. The 4 was a good play imo, at least the 9 ruff is possible with 98, way mroe than 94, as they are touching cards

[Phil]

JL, you keep talking about the 'falsecard' of ruffing with the 9 with 94.

Dummy had 52 and was out of spades.

[JLOGIC]

ahh so im dumb. sorry lol, was thinking the 4 was higher than dummy

[jonottawa]

I think 3H is normal and 4H is 'out there'. (I see no reason to stretch when my side suit is S.) Must I give back my 'normal aggressive' membership card?

[han]

No, but you will probably never get your consistency card.