[mikeh]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-14, 03:15, said:

Obviously it depends on the opponents, but I'd be suspicious of any count signals I was given here. They really ought to be able to see that the diamond suit is irrelevant.

I'd just play the hand that bid at the six-level for a singleton. Maybe he planned this in the bidding, by bidding 6♣ with ♥Qx to talk me into going down, but most people aren't that clever.

Surely when RHO has hauled out exclusion keycard at his first call, and one is looking at 6 card support for partner, one may reasonably think that the opps are going to slam no matter what you bid......when partner is favourite to hold 6 cards in our suit, thus giving us a 12 card fit, just how often are the opps ever going to be able to double us?

Even if they want to double us for penalty, there is a good chance that they literally cannot do it because they are playing DOPI.

Thus opener will double with 0 keycards and how often does a 1♠ opener have zero keycards? And he'll pass with 1, but try creating an exclusion hand that would double 6♣ for penalty, rather than bidding slam, if that happened. East knows that we can't possibly work out if he bid on say 0=4=3=6, with his partner being say 3=1=3=6 (can you imagine getting rich on that layout?) or the 2=3=2=6 I am playing him for.

And if opener has (unusually) 2 keycards, then he bids over 6♣ and deprives his side of the ability to double anyway.

Now, if your argument was that this sort of thinking is beyond East, presumably because we have made an assumption to that effect, I can see why you might conclude that E should have a stiff.

I don't make that assumption: to the contrary, I assume that any East looking at any 6 card fit would want to take away the 5 level and, more importantly, the ability to explore for grand that passing 5♣ permits.

As it is, I think the guess for the Q♥ is very close and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to have guessed wrong. However, I don't see why we should assume that E is incapable of thinking as I have outlined, so I think that hooking West because of E's 6♣ is an overly-simplistic approach.

Btw, my analysis is absolutely not based on the notion that East foresaw the problem and was being cute with Qx♥. I think that thinking that way is getting way too far down the rabbit-hole.

[PhilKing]

 mikeh, on 2013-March-14, 11:55, said:

Surely when RHO has hauled out exclusion keycard at his first call, and one is looking at 6 card support for partner, one may reasonably think that the opps are going to slam no matter what you bid......when partner is favourite to hold 6 cards in our suit, thus giving us a 12 card fit, just how often are the opps ever going to be able to double us?

Even if they want to double us for penalty, there is a good chance that they literally cannot do it because they are playing DOPI.

Thus opener will double with 0 keycards and how often does a 1♠ opener have zero keycards? And he'll pass with 1, but try creating an exclusion hand that would double 6♣ for penalty, rather than bidding slam, if that happened. East knows that we can't possibly work out if he bid on say 0=4=3=6, with his partner being say 3=1=3=6 (can you imagine getting rich on that layout?) or the 2=3=2=6 I am playing him for.

And if opener has (unusually) 2 keycards, then he bids over 6♣ and deprives his side of the ability to double anyway.

Now, if your argument was that this sort of thinking is beyond East, presumably because we have made an assumption to that effect, I can see why you might conclude that E should have a stiff.

I don't make that assumption: to the contrary, I assume that any East looking at any 6 card fit would want to take away the 5 level and, more importantly, the ability to explore for grand that passing 5♣ permits.

As it is, I think the guess for the Q♥ is very close and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to have guessed wrong. However, I don't see why we should assume that E is incapable of thinking as I have outlined, so I think that hooking West because of E's 6♣ is an overly-simplistic approach.

Btw, my analysis is absolutely not based on the notion that East foresaw the problem and was being cute with Qx♥. I think that thinking that way is getting way too far down the rabbit-hole.

I think all this is pretty much true, but the trouble is that 6♣ may beget 7♣ from partner when he places us with a hand that wasn't offering 1100 in six.

[mikeh]

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-14, 11:52, said:

I think all this is pretty much true, but the trouble is that 6♣ may beget 7♣ from partner when he places us with a hand that wasn't offering 1100 in six.

Really?

When one makes the opps guess, and they guess to bid a small slam, and we are at equal, what sort of partner/hand finds a 7 level save?

If I bid 6♣in this auction, with partner having overcalled 2♣, rather than preempting, it wouldn't occur to me that partner would see my 6♣ call as inviting a 7-level dive at equal.

We don't jam the opps, find them take a conservative position, and then dive. 5♣, in any sane partnership, is an incredibly strong slam move, often with aspirations towards grand. After all, he consumed 4 levels of bidding and bypassed many ways of showing a gf hand. All he needed, in order to place the contract, is to know how many keycards partner has.

East is in a position in which jamming makes sense and he should be allowed to jam without fearing that his partner fails to understand the situation.

If, as you say, my thinking, in terms of how East should analyze his options, is correct, why assume that West is listening to a different auction?

[PhilKing]

 mikeh, on 2013-March-14, 12:18, said:

Really?

When one makes the opps guess, and they guess to bid a small slam, and we are at equal, what sort of partner/hand finds a 7 level save?

If I bid 6♣in this auction, with partner having overcalled 2♣, rather than preempting, it wouldn't occur to me that partner would see my 6♣ call as inviting a 7-level dive at equal.

We don't jam the opps, find them take a conservative position, and then dive. 5♣, in any sane partnership, is an incredibly strong slam move, often with aspirations towards grand. After all, he consumed 4 levels of bidding and bypassed many ways of showing a gf hand. All he needed, in order to place the contract, is to know how many keycards partner has.

East is in a position in which jamming makes sense and he should be allowed to jam without fearing that his partner fails to understand the situation.

If, as you say, my thinking, in terms of how East should analyze his options, is correct, why assume that West is listening to a different auction?

Well, if your way of thinking is correct, clearly he shouldn't, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we are playing against a pair who does not share that view.

Even if two thirds of the world do it your way, and we don't know which category the opposition fall into, then we are still veering towards placing East with shape more often than West.

[Free]

The lead is a joke. Against grand there's no reason to lead honestly. Also, why would West lead an unsupported Ace after exclusion BW? It wouldn't be the first time that the Ace gets ruffed and declarer holds ♣K. On the other hand, West may think it's safe enough after his partner raised to 6. Basically, ♣K could be anywhere.

However, I don't believe East would raise to 6♣ on a balanced hand with only a 6 card suit at equal vulnerability. I think there's more chance of West having ♣AKJxx rather than a 6 card suit (and East having 7 ♣s). West overcalled without a passed partner, so his bid must be legit. East therefore must have a very weak hand, so probably 'some' distribution. I give East singleton or void ♥ since he's shown 2♠ and 2+♦ already. I'll start with ♥A and finesse against West.

[FrancesHinden]

 mikeh, on 2013-March-13, 19:00, said:

Personally, my approach when defending slams against a competent declarer,where I trust partner to be a good defender and I cannot make a clear signal that cannot cost and may help, is that I almost always play my cards up the line. I just don't give any signal at all.

that's really bad. Playing cards strictly up the line is just as poor as giving true count all the time. I hope you didn't really mean it, but rather you just meant you play your spots randomly.

[Fluffy]

playing up the line all the time is not as bad as true count all the time, not remotelly close. But it is far from best.


On this hand RHO had 2326 with only ♥Q as a honnor.

[JLOGIC]

bink

[Free]

 Fluffy, on 2013-March-16, 08:56, said:

On this hand RHO had 2326 with only ♥Q as a honnor.

At least you went only 1 down, where a 2236 would make it 2 off

[JLOGIC]

Not all carding is created equal. Yes, people can lead the CA from AK playing rusinow vs a grand lol, that doesn't take too much imagination. More over, we know almost certainly that LHO has the AK of clubs for his bidding, his best possible relevant hand would otherwise be xx Qx Qxx AJTxxx.

Likewise, echos are always more reliable count signals than up the line. It takes effort to falsecard an echo, it does not take effort to just play up the line. It is silly but it is true. Be honest with yourself, how often do you not give count by just playing up the line, vs how often do you falsecard your echo? I bet no one or almost no one does the latter more often or even close.

On top of that, RHO played the 9 of diamonds. Since that is the highest one other than the queen we can assume RHO had 9x or Q9x (yeah it's possible with 9xx to play low 9, esp with the 8 as the other one, but again people almost always go up the line there). If RHO has Q9x we know that lefty falsecarded their echo from 3 small. If RHO has 9x, we know that RHO just played up the line with 9x, and lefty gave honest count with Qxxx. If you agree with what I said in the 2nd paragraph of this post, you will know which one it is.

Ofc knowing the diamond layout does not mean you have an automatic play either way, but it will make your decision better. It is not inconsistent to think that it's Qxxx of diamonds from their carding just because we know they falsecarded their lead from AK vs a grand, you cannot even make that comparison.

It might feel stupid to read the hands this way and exploitable and sad, but once you give in and accept that these obvious patterns exist at all levels and start to believe them and try to see them and figure them out, your hand reading will improve a lot imo.

On a similar note, I would take almost no inference from the 6C bid. I do not have enough of a sample against random opps to know what hand types they're likely to bid 6C with. I would not be surprised if any hand with 6 clubs is in the game.

[ArtK78]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-March-16, 09:28, said:

Not all carding is created equal. Yes, people can lead the CA from AK playing rusinow vs a grand lol, that doesn't take too much imagination.

Rusinow has nothing to do with it, as most pairs that play Rusinow do not play it against slams.

[ArtK78]

Double post.