[eagles123]

---

Lead 5 ♠ to ace
♠2 to king
T♠


How would you play this?

Thanks,

Eagles

[Winstonm]

Simple minded for me - if rho is ruffing the third spade he probably has longer hearts which gives me an extra entry to dummy so I toss the losing club on the spade 10. I will take only one high heart before coming to hand with a trump for the diamond finesse. If that wins , diamond ace and ruff a diamond. Etc.

[mikeh]

At the table we’d know their lead agreements. For example, if they lead 4th best, then LHO has either K105 or K10853. If they lead 3rd and fifth or 3rd and low, he might have K1053

I’ve long asked posters to specify ALL information that we’d have at the table. The fact that an OP doesn’t seem to consider this sort of information to be relevant says a lot about the OP’s skill level. Good players use every legally available information. Many times that information may not end up being significant, but one always wants it…always. Here, for example, the 10 back probably resolves the relative length issue, but why not tell us what we’d know at the table?

The lead of the 10 is highly suggestive of K105….it would be a very weird return otherwise since there’s no way he wants a diamond back, if his partner ruffs, plus it would be embarrassing if his partner held Jxx and we now set up our 9 from 9xxx.

So I’m confident that I can pitch a club on this.

I still have lots of work to do, especially if hearts don’t break.

I’m pretty much cold on a winning diamond hook, so assume it loses. Now there’s a danger of a spade back, forcing me to overruff with the heart Q, risking losing a trump trick even with a 3-2 break.

So I draw two rounds of trump, ending in hand. Then I hook the diamond, regardless of how trump behave (I’d rethink if trump were 5-0)

How I’d play thereafter depends on what I’ve learned, but my basic plan is to establish diamonds, making dummy good.

If RHO somehow ruffs the third spade, which would be very surprising, I’d rethink, although I doubt my basic plan would change.

[eagles123]

unfortunately this was against two pickups so i couldn't have given much more information. As it happened nothing would have worked, but I pitched a club at trick three successfully, and then immediately worked on diamonds. I think playing one or two trumps first is better.


And Mike I've been on this forum for a long time, but I find a comment like, "The fact that an OP doesn’t seem to consider this sort of information to be relevant says a lot about the OP’s skill level," decidedly unhelpful. I am no expert, in fact I hardly play at all these days and prefer watching/commenting on Bridge Winners, but is there any need for this kind of unnessecary dig? I should have included that the opponents didn't have firm agreements, and I'm in no denial about my own ability, but come on this is well out of line in my opinion, especially as you must have seen my hundreds of posts in the past (initially in the B/I section might I add!)

[mikeh]

eagles123, on 2021-December-20, 14:57, said:

unfortunately this was against two pickups so i couldn't have given much more information. As it happened nothing would have worked, but I pitched a club at trick three successfully, and then immediately worked on diamonds. I think playing one or two trumps first is better.


And Mike I've been on this forum for a long time, but I find a comment like, "The fact that an OP doesn’t seem to consider this sort of information to be relevant says a lot about the OP’s skill level," decidedly unhelpful. I am no expert, in fact I hardly play at all these days and prefer watching/commenting on Bridge Winners, but is there any need for this kind of unnessecary dig? I should have included that the opponents didn't have firm agreements, and I'm in no denial about my own ability, but come on this is well out of line in my opinion, especially as you must have seen my hundreds of posts in the past (initially in the B/I section might I add!)

It was not intended to be a personal criticism. I’ve lamented the bad habit, of posting play problems without providing relevant information, many times and no doubt will do so again. I assume that anyone posting a play problem is looking for meaningful guidance. How I play any given hand depends on what information is available. Thus my answer is likely to be influenced by any lack of information that I would absolutely have at the table, on,one or otherwise.

Bridge is a game of incomplete information, but there is ALWAYS some information, even if it negative as in ‘they’re a pickup partnership with no agreements’

My comment wasn’t intended as a dig. I inferred, perhaps mistakenly, that you didn’t include lead or carding information because you don’t think that information is relevant to how one plays a hand. Maybe, if you do see that it’s relevant, you’ll bear that in mind the next time you post a play problem. You’ll get, at least from me, an answer that will probably be more helpful.

[pilowsky]

"says a lot about ... skill level" - is an unnecessary aspersion.
If you want people who are looking for your expert opinion to take you seriously and not be distracted from your important points it may help your cause to leave these comments uncast.

This is not the "Paper Chase" and you are not John Houseman.

[mikeh]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-20, 16:09, said:

"says a lot about ... skill level" - is an unnecessary aspersion.
If you want people who are looking for your expert opinion to take you seriously and not be distracted from your important points it may help your cause to leave these comments uncast.

This is not the "Paper Chase" and you are not John Houseman.

Lol. Maybe reflect on the irony manifest in your own criticism of me. At least I was trying to improve the bridge quality of posts.

As for taking my posts seriously, in terms of bridge insights, look at the substance.

I try to be as detailed as possible, describing my thought processes. It’s up to the reader, not me, to assess how helpful/reliable my posts are. I’m not exactly infallible, so a secondary reason is to elicit contrary opinions, which may cause me to rethink.

[eagles123]

mikeh, on 2021-December-20, 15:58, said:

It was not intended to be a personal criticism. I’ve lamented the bad habit, of posting play problems without providing relevant information, many times and no doubt will do so again. I assume that anyone posting a play problem is looking for meaningful guidance. How I play any given hand depends on what information is available. Thus my answer is likely to be influenced by any lack of information that I would absolutely have at the table, on,one or otherwise.

Bridge is a game of incomplete information, but there is ALWAYS some information, even if it negative as in ‘they’re a pickup partnership with no agreements’

My comment wasn’t intended as a dig. I inferred, perhaps mistakenly, that you didn’t include lead or carding information because you don’t think that information is relevant to how one plays a hand. Maybe, if you do see that it’s relevant, you’ll bear that in mind the next time you post a play problem. You’ll get, at least from me, an answer that will probably be more helpful.

Mike, I think you're great the last thing I want to do is have some drama!

[pilowsky]

mikeh, on 2021-December-20, 16:38, said:

Lol. Maybe reflect on the irony manifest in your own criticism of me. At least I was trying to improve the bridge quality of posts.

As for taking my posts seriously, in terms of bridge insights, look at the substance.

I try to be as detailed as possible, describing my thought processes. It’s up to the reader, not me, to assess how helpful/reliable my posts are. I’m not exactly infallible, so a secondary reason is to elicit contrary opinions, which may cause me to rethink.

As I said, I think your insights about Bridge are useful and helpful (to me anyway).
I also appreciate the detail and the thought that you clearly put into them.

I am not criticising your Bridge judgement.
I am trying to provide some insight into the way that your assistance might come across to the "person on the Clapham omnibus" when you comment on the skill level of others.

Typically, people seeking assistance do not find comments pointing out that they lack competence helpful.
It distracts from the useful messages you are providing.
I for one am well aware of my lack of competence.
I don't need assistance in having it pointed out.

Maybe I'm alone in this. Perhaps others write questions on the Bridge forum in order to have better players tell them they are being silly, lack judgement and skill.
It's possible, I wouldn't know, I'm a rather weak player.

[kenberg]

Let me try this a little differently. That lead of the spade T at T3 is interesting. And to some extent so is the 2 at T2. I play in the acbl games a fair amount. The play is decent but hardly expert and often I do not have a clear understanding of the opponent's carding and, for that matter, our own carding. Recently against a minor suit contract I led 4th from Kxxxx in hearts, partner took the A and returned the deuce. I took my K and, seeing dummy had started with three hearts, I led a third heart expecting a ruff. No, partner had started from A32 and led back the 2 instead of the 3.

My point is that while it would be great to know what carding everyone is playing, usually we don't.

Lunch is ready, I might say a bit more after I get fed.

[kenberg]

Another thought or two. Suppose we agree that the spade 2 at T2 is on either four cards or two. Could it be on 4? Yes, I guess so. It's not unknown to lead the 5 from KT5. Otoh, suppose Rho started with Axxx. Let's give him the D K. He can see two spade tricks and a diamond trick and needs a 4th trick somewhere. So he shifts to a club at T2.
Conclusion: If we play low, the spade will be ruffed. If Lho has the D K we don't care, at least not at imps.
I'm inclined to just play it simple, as Winston suggests. Let them ruff. If the diamond K is offside we are off 1.

Assuming a ruff, we might still have to think a bit if a small D comes back from JTxx.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2021-December-24, 11:11, said:

Let me try this a little differently. That lead of the spade T at T3 is interesting. And to some extent so is the 2 at T2. I play in the acbl games a fair amount. The play is decent but hardly expert and often I do not have a clear understanding of the opponent's carding and, for that matter, our own carding. Recently against a minor suit contract I led 4th from Kxxxx in hearts, partner took the A and returned the deuce. I took my K and, seeing dummy had started with three hearts, I led a third heart expecting a ruff. No, partner had started from A32 and led back the 2 instead of the 3.

My point is that while it would be great to know what carding everyone is playing, usually we don't.

Lunch is ready, I might say a bit more after I get fed.

Ken, you should always know their agreements or lack thereof. When I’m playing people I don’t know well, and either can’t or don’t want to take the time to find
D and study their CC, I always ask, before playing to trick one…’leads and carding?’

Now, they may have no agreement, which I wouldn’t accept if they were a regular partnership, or they may not abide by their agreements, as your partner showed with his egregious 2 back. Or they may misclick.

However, most of the time they have agreements and stick to them.

As for the play, everything points to a lead from K105 and a standard original 4th best 2 at trick 2. I think assuming otherwise is overthinking the hand.

[kenberg]

"Let's not overthink this", as Winston and you are saying, is pretty much the same conclusion I came to. But I think there could be a ruff at T3. My thinking is "Could be either, but if the ruff happens then we need the diamond finesse to work. Finesses sometimes work, so go with it." I am not about to ruff high and then hope to get subsequent guesses right.

As to knowing their carding and other agreements. The acbl game I play in has 18 minute rounds, three boards to a round. I type slowly, as do others. Of course they have an online cc that I could try to read.

Here is what I do when playing with my usual pard: I have a preset message, "Pretty standard bidding, not 2/1, leads and carding standard". Some do about this much, others nothing, maybe occasionally someone does more. This particular pard likes to lead second highest from spots so if I have the 9723 I lead the 7. That's on our cc but I don't usually include it in my preset message, although I might send a quick private message to declarer if I feel there might be ambiguity. "Pretty standard" means that 1S means what you think it does, but we play 2D as Flannery, alerted of course.

This isn't great. Back in live tourney days I did more. I go with the world as it is. I rate myself at the upper end of disclosiveness for the online acbl games. Consider an auction 1D-2C-2S. I doubt any ccs say if this shows extras. I don't bother to ask, we will just be sending typo filled messages back and forth and probably still run out of time. So I let it be. I usually can work out things w/o having to ask.

Not perfect, I agree. I'm ok with it. I usually finish rounds on time.

[kenberg]

I looked up the hand and there are some interesting features not yet discussed. And there is one feature that I did mention, an amusing coincidence.

I am not really trying to be vague, but I don't want to get into what actually happened after T3 unless it's ok Upon reflection I will be a little clearer.

Rho follows suit. The amusing part is that in fact he started with A32. the exact cards my pard hand that I mentioned above. I doubt that they had any specific agreement (upside-down returns?), he just won the A and returned the 2 from A32.

But the hand isn't over.