[MrAce]

---

Team match, exp opps.

T1- ♣9,x,A,x
T2- ♣T,x,♥5,x
T3- ♠9,4,A,T
T4- ♣7,♥A,♦J,4

Now i can cash the ♥K or i can go for finesse. If i cash the ♥K i would be playing for Q5 doubleton with west, if i finesse i would be playing west for 85 or 75 or Q stiff.

So i decided to finesse, went to dummy and played ♥J, seeing ♥7. I finessed anyway, am i missing something because LHO had Q5 and i went down while WC player at other table made it. I understand that seeing ♥7 eliminates the possibility of LHO holding 75 but still he might have started with stiff 5. I also know this is not a likely split but still something more than just playing LHO for Q5 specific holding. Where did i go wrong ? Or was it just a close guess ?

[aguahombre]

Maybe I am the one missing something. If lefty had the stiff queen, he would have roughed with the stiff queen. If righty had the stiff queen it would show. So you are left with q5, 85, or stiff 5 as the only relevant holdings. q85 offside is no-win. 2 stiffs is minimal, but there is a restricted choice thing about the 87 in the other hand, so perhaps the finesse was still right.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-26, 22:01, said:

Maybe I am the one missing something. If lefty had the stiff queen, he would have roughed with the stiff queen. If righty had the stiff queen it would show. So you are left with q5, 85, or stiff 5 as the only relevant holdings. q85 offside is no-win. 2 stiffs is minimal, but there is a restricted choice thing about the 87 in the other hand, so perhaps the finesse was still right.

Sorry. i intended to say stiff 5,obviously, i will correct original post, thanks.

[inquiry]

You can't make if west started with three hearts, so you have to play West for two or one heart. Most of us will not play him for two singletons, so lets consider the possibility where West has a doubleton heart. If he had 85 doubleton he had a choice of hearts to play, but if he had Q5 he had to play the five. So restricted choice says to play for the drop of the queen, and this is not even close. So I would play for restricted choice and pop up with the king. (well lead the king from hand).

However, that doesn't mean East can't have three hearts, but the chances of east having three hearts and five clubs to west's 1♥ and 1♣ and west not bidding seems remarkably low, but he was very weak (east had spade A and probably jack, and club ace). But to be certain that the restricted choice solution to the 2-2 split out weighs the combined Qx and Qxx on side, you would have to estimate the chances for hearts to be 1=3.

The chances for 2=2 split with the known club split, is just below 40%, the chance of 3-1 is heavier for the hand with short clbus having 3, but you can't make it then. The chances for the hand with long clubs having three is almost 14%, but you can eliminate 1/4 of those since the one with the singleton queen didn't happen, dropping the odds to about 10%.

So here is what you have, remaining....

♥x ♥qxx (10.5%) - correct for when makable = 21.4%
♥xx ♥qx (19%) - corrected for when makable = 39.3%
♥qx ♥xx (19%) - corrected for when makable = 39.3%

without considering restricted choice, the finesse line looks much better (39.3+21.4= 60.7%) than playing for the drop. However, this is where simple math falls down. When west ruffed with the low heart, there is a presumption that his choice was restricted.

However, the math is actually different. The assumption when west ruffs low, his choice would be restricted with Qx, that is, if I understand this correctly, with
Q5 - must ruff with 5 100% of the time
85 - would ruff with 5, 50% of the time

So if west had a doubleton heart, then it he the odds are something like two our three that his second heart is the queen. So of the 38% with 2/2 split, the odds would be 2/3 x .38 or 25.8% he has the queen, and only 13% that he doesn't hold the queen.. The restricted choice implications changes the table from above to this...


♥x ♥qxx (10.5%) - correct for when make able = 21.4%
♥xx ♥qx (12.2%) - corrected for when make able = 25.1%
♥qx ♥xx (25.8%) - corrected for when make able = 53.5%<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
So when you add these up, the odds become for the finesse (21.4 + 25.1) is 46.6%, playing for the drop is 53.4%. There could be rounding errors here. These numbers are rough estimates, and i could be off a bit, but I think the wc player was probably thinking along these lines.

[MrAce]

I dont understand why we take out the possibility of W holding 2 singletons ? He is vulnerable vs white, looking at the replies in forums how people are preempting at these colors, west being silent in the auction especially after we see everything with east, doesnt really convince me to totally ignore the 5 - Q87 split.

Do you really think ruffing with 8 or 5 is a random choice as if they are equal strength like QJ or T9 ? Because dummy has JT9. At the table we all either ruff with 5, or we can sit and think if there is a position where ruffing with 8 can cost and find out that it doesnt and ruff with 8. Which one do we usually do at the table, Ben ? Our brain auto tells us that if we ruff with 8 first round, we will allow declarer to be able to ruff with 6 or 7 next round, whether it is relevant or not after giving a thought about it. Definetely not as random as playing a card from equal strength.

[quiddity]

inquiry, on 2012-June-26, 22:27, said:

You can't make if west started with three hearts, so you have to play West for two or one heart. Most of us will not play him for two singletons, so lets consider the possibility where West has a doubleton heart. If he had 85 doubleton he had a choice of hearts to play, but if he had Q5 he had to play the five. So restricted choice says to play for the drop of the queen, and this is not even close. So I would play for restricted choice and pop up with the king. (well lead the king from hand).

Isn't LHO's restricted choice canceled by RHO's restricted choice when he follows with ♥7?

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2012-June-26, 23:39, said:

I dont understand why we take out the possibility of W holding 2 singletons ? He is vulnerable vs white, looking at the replies in forums how people are preempting at these colors, west being silent in the auction especially after we see everything with east, doesnt really convince me to totally ignore the 5 - Q87 split.

Do you really think ruffing with 8 or 5 is a random choice as if they are equal strength like QJ or T9 ? Because dummy has JT9. At the table we all either ruff with 5, or we can sit and think if there is a position where ruffing with 8 can cost and find out that it doesnt and ruff with 8. Which one do we usually do at the table, Ben ? Our brain auto tells us that if we ruff with 8 first round, we will allow declarer to be able to ruff with 6 or 7 next round, whether it is relevant or not after giving a thought about it. Definetely not as random as playing a card from equal strength.

I agree.
I would probably have also gone for the finesse. I doubt that the restricted choice arguments hold water here.
If at all, the 87 combination with East is the one, which should be discounted and this favors the finesse.
In my experience people do not often ruff with a higher from unequal spot cards in this position (unless signalling count in the trump suit).
There is no good reason to ignore a two singleton hand with West completely. West had no bid other than Pass even if he held such a hand with at most 2 jacks.
You were unlucky in my opinion, though I would probably have jumped to 3NT instead of 4♥ with the South hand.
(If you open routinely 1NT with a 5 card major, what does 3NT show in this sequence?)

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

quiddity, on 2012-June-27, 00:13, said:

Isn't LHO's restricted choice canceled by RHO's restricted choice when he follows with ♥7?

Yes. If you apply restricted choice to one pair of small cards, you have to apply it to every pair of small cards.

I sometimes think that whoever invented the concept of restricted choice did the bridge world a disservice. Here, it's got an intelligent player tied up in knots when all he had to do was think of the pack as containing one queen and three identical small cards.

[gnasher]

If we believe that both players would play randomly from two small cards, I think it is a close decision. The 2-2 breaks are symmetrical, so the finesse gains when the suit is 1=3. West would nearly always have bid over 1♥ with 4171 or 3181, so the upside of a finesse is only when the hands are something like J9xxx x Jxxxxx x = Ax Qxx 10xx A10xxx and West chose not to bid.

Maybe your world-class opponent picked something up from the opponents' tempo? Even if he wouldn't bid over 1♥ with 5161, West might have thought about it, so decarer might have been confident that the suit was 2-2. At trick three, with a singleton queen of trumps remaining, West would be very quick to play a spade and try to get his promotion, whereas with no promotable trump left he might have thought for a moment about the best way to defend.

[gnasher]

Another possibility is that EW at the other table were reliable count-signallers (or reliable false-count givers). If ♠9 showed count, and then both players gave true count in diamonds, there would be no guess at all.

I know that the defenders shouldn't do that, but many players do. The tricky bit is knowing whose signals to rely on and when, but that's part of why we have world-class players and non-world-class players.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-June-27, 02:50, said:

West would nearly always have bid over 1♥ with 4171 or 3181...

So red on white at Imps what do you bid over 1♥ with
♠J9xx,♥x,♦Jxxxxxx,♣x ???

For my money I would keep my mouth shut even with
♠J9x,♥x,♦Jxxxxxxx,♣x

Under what circumstances do you expect to gain? Suppose you have a fit do you expect to win the auction?
I can see lot's of ways to loose like misleading partner or tipping declarer about the distribution of the deal.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

Yeah I agree, even 8311 would pass and that seems normal to me.

However, it is very hard to be dealt 2 stiffs. Even without bidding clues, I would guess that 2 stiffs is much less likely than 2-1.

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2012-June-27, 06:25, said:

So red on white at Imps what do you bid over 1♥ with
♠J9xx,♥x,♦Jxxxxxx,♣x ???

For my money I would keep my mouth shut even with
♠J9x,♥x,♦Jxxxxxxx,♣x

Under what circumstances do you expect to gain? Suppose you have a fit do you expect to win the auction?
I can see lot's of ways to loose like misleading partner or tipping declarer about the distribution of the deal.

I thought it was nobody vulnerable when I posted that. I agree that many players would pass with those shapes at adverse, especially since we seem to have unluckily ended up without either the 10 or the 9 of our long suit.

Since you ask, yes I'd bid with those shapes even at adverse, certainly if you gave me ♦10. And I'm sure you already understand the ways in which preempts can gain, just as well as you understand how they stand to lose.

[billw55]

It is interesting how many ways there are to think about this that I had not considered.

I would reason this way. Playing for the drop caters to exactly one split: Q5-87. Finesse caters to two splits: 85-Q7, and 5-Q87. At the table I might putz around a bit looking for a tell, but ultimately to me this just seems like the hook is a 2-1 favorite.

[mr1303]

If you held Qx, would you auto-lead a singleton on this auction?

Not saying you wouldn't lead it, just that I might be more willing to consider alternatives holding Qx than I would holding xx

[billw55]

mr1303, on 2012-June-27, 07:53, said:

If you held Qx, would you auto-lead a singleton on this auction?

Not saying you wouldn't lead it, just that I might be more willing to consider alternatives holding Qx than I would holding xx

Perhaps. I am not well versed in the proper use of inferences like this. If it is true that a singleton lead is less likely from a hand holding Qx in trumps, then the finesse would be even better? Since the only holding favoring the drop is downgraded in probability?

[jogs]

billw55, on 2012-June-27, 07:41, said:

It is interesting how many ways there are to think about this that I had not considered.

I would reason this way. Playing for the drop caters to exactly one split: Q5-87. Finesse caters to two splits: 85-Q7, and 5-Q87. At the table I might putz around a bit looking for a tell, but ultimately to me this just seems like the hook is a 2-1 favorite.

May not be exactly 2/1. Q5-87 and 85-Q7 should be equal. 5-Q87 is a freebie.

Why didn't your teammate lead his singleton club?

[Fluffy]

2 stiffs is greatly dissmissed, not only on the bidding, but also on the lead. Leading a singleton from 2 singletons is less appealing that from 2 trumps.

[JLOGIC]

What are you leading if not your stiff when you have a yarborough on this auction?

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-June-27, 02:17, said:

Yes. If you apply restricted choice to one pair of small cards, you have to apply it to every pair of small cards.

I sometimes think that whoever invented the concept of restricted choice did the bridge world a disservice. Here, it's got an intelligent player tied up in knots when all he had to do was think of the pack as containing one queen and three identical small cards.

This

Ben, if we apply restricted choice to both players, East (rho) as Rainer also said, would play randomly from 87. And imo more randomly than West choosing from 85 for the reasons i already said in my previous reply. But East will ALWAYS play 7 from Q7 holding. No ?

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-27, 08:39, said:

What are you leading if not your stiff when you have a yarborough on this auction?

And this of course.


@Andy: I was playing vs Kevin Fay and our very own Phil (on my left). we all played first 4 tricks fairly fast. As to the tempo in bidding, i dont know how one can come to conclusions from that. It can be anything such as ping, dog, spilled coffee or whatever. But i think you are suggesting that if my LHO passed very fast over my 1♥ that he is unlikely to hold 7-4 or 6-5 hand even if he would never bid with that. I agree people even with 0 hcp tends to look at their hand a little longer as if they are throwing their baby in the trash, before they pass