[paulg]

This hand is why I do not like matchpoints but is also presumably why many love it. It is from the Reisinger final but could just as easily been from the pairs final in Providence.

---

The lead is the ♠2 (4th from good). You win North's queen with the ace and play the top diamonds, both following with South holding the queen. You now cash three more diamonds, On these South pitches the ♥7, ♣4, and ♥2; North pitches the ♠10, ♥3, and ♥4.

When you lead the ♥Q, South follows with the ♥8. Do you finesse, going down if it loses or making +3 if it works, or just settle for 7 tricks?

This theme of whether to finesse for overtricks in a partscore while jeopardising the contract is one I struggle with.

[ArtK78]

paulg, on 2014-December-10, 10:42, said:

This hand is why I do not like matchpoints but is also presumably why many love it. It is from the Reisinger final but could just as easily been from the pairs final in Providence.

---

The lead is the ♠2 (4th from good). You win North's queen with the ace and play the top diamonds, both following with South holding the queen. You now cash three more diamonds, On these South pitches the ♥7, ♣4, and ♥2; North pitches the ♠10, ♥3, and ♥4.

When you lead the ♥Q, South follows with the ♥8. Do you finesse, going down if it loses or making +3 if it works, or just settle for 7 tricks?

This theme of whether to finesse for overtricks in a partscore while jeopardising the contract is one I struggle with.

I would not finesse.

South pitched 2 hearts. He would not have done that from an initial holding of Kxxx, as that would allow the suit to run. And if he had Kxxxx he would probably let the suit rather than lead from a broken 4 card spade suit. So I assume that North had Kxxx of hearts as his initial holding.

[the_clown]

I wouldnt finess they are probably col for 2♠ so 1N= should be fine

[WesleyC]

On this particular hand it's comes down to psychology because expert opponents will be discarding deceptively. This is an area where top experts seem to sniff out the correct play both as declarer and as defense.

However, if you change the hand slightly (by adding the Qd to dummy) then you would make it much harder by winning the ♠A and floating the ♥Q at trick two. This puts a lot of more pressure on LHO to duck in tempo when the rest of the hand is still unknown.

Playing against a weak opponent who 'always' covers honours, I would even play this line on the actual hand.

[whereagles]

At MPs it is perfectly acceptable to go down on a cold contract in search for overtricks...!!!

Now to the hand: if the finesse fails, they would be cold for 2♠ (and -50 beats -110). If it works, they would probably go 1 down on 2♠, meaning you need an overtrick to beat +100.

Seems like an ok time to go greedy LOL, but I do agree that the fall of the cards suggests a failing finesse.

[benlessard]

After a 1D opening south may make a takeout X and NS may endup in 2S so south having Kxxx is a less likely relevant holding because of 2S and 3D contracts.

If south manage to discard from Kxxx congrats !

[Fluffy]

south wouldn't pitch a heart from Kxxx so easilly, south would also double with ♠KJxx ♥Kxxx ♦Qx ♣Hxx or even ♠J9xx ♥Kxxx ♦Qx ♣HHx, but he didn't double, all points to ♥K being on north so do not finesse.

[whereagles]

By the way, this was board-a-match scoring, right?

Going up with the ace will always give you matchpoints vs a large field, but in BAM you have to guess what the other table played and act accordingly. Finesse becomes more attractive, even if likely to fail.

[paulg]

It was board-a-match.

When watching the hand I thought there was a fair chance that the position I posted would arise and wondered what declarer would do. However he took WesleyC's line and put the ♥Q on the table at trick two. Steve Weinstein, South, ducked and declarer went up with the ace of hearts and played for the diamonds to break making seven tricks for +90.

South held KJxx Kxxx Qx Q10x (board 5 in this vugraph file).

It was BAM. As team mates lost -200 on the board it didn't matter what you did.

[benlessard]

Quote

By the way, this was board-a-match scoring, right?

Going up with the ace will always give you matchpoints vs a large field, but in BAM you have to guess what the other table played and act accordingly. Finesse becomes more attractive, even if likely to fail.

What you are describing is an illusion.

Assuming you guess that your single opponents are going to be in

A 15%
B 40%
C 45%

than your strategies vs a field with those probabilities should be the same.
Often the field will be

ABCDEF but DEF can be removed because no matter what you do wont matter vs these contracts. So in the end its your strategy vs the relevant contracts ABC that matter.

In a large field there is always offbeat result that are creating noise but not matter what you do it wont change your MP score vs those tables so it shouldnt change your strategy.

[whereagles]

I have no clue what you're talking about

[jogs]

More insane than matchpoints, BAM. That's matchpoints with a 1 top.

Is your opponents holding the East hand opening 1♦? If so, they are
probably playing in 3♦. Finesse off, 3♦-1. Finesse on, 3♦=, +110.

Assume you finesse. Off, you push the board. On, you win the board.

Assume you take your 7 tricks. Off, you win the board.
On, you lose the board.

Seems like higher EV in finessing.

[benlessard]

Quote

I have no clue what you're talking about

Its wrong to think that the finesse become more attractive in BAM. The strategy should be the same in MP and in BAM if the estimate of the the others tables (doesnt matter how many) is similar to the probabilistic curve of a single table.

[jogs]

This is a simple Algebra I problem if opponent's are likely to be in 3♦.

1/2 y + 1(1-y) = y

y is the chances of the finesse being off.
(1-y) is the finesse is on.
You push the board against 3♦-1 when the finesse is off
You win the board when the finesse if on +150 or +180 vs +110.

.5y + 1 - y = y
1 - .5y = y
1 = 1.5 y
2/3 = y

1-y = 1/3

If there is less than 1/3 chance of the finesse being on, play the ♥A, else take the finesse.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2014-December-10, 10:42, said:

This hand is why I do not like matchpoints but is also presumably why many love it. It is from the Reisinger final but could just as easily been from the pairs final in Providence.

The lead is the ♠2 (4th from good). You win North's queen with the ace and play the top diamonds, both following with South holding the queen. You now cash three more diamonds, On these South pitches the ♥7, ♣4, and ♥2; North pitches the ♠10, ♥3, and ♥4.
When you lead the ♥Q, South follows with the ♥8. Do you finesse, going down if it loses or making +3 if it works, or just settle for 7 tricks?
This theme of whether to finesse for overtricks in a partscore while jeopardising the contract is one I struggle with.

---

I prefer match-points to imps because there is the opportunity to apply intelligence and skill to almost every board. Professionals normallty prefer team-events, mainly because it's easier to carry a sponsor when the burden is shared by 3 or 5 others. BAMs are welcome because they are team-events with match-point scoring -- the best of both worlds.

You might argue that anything could happen in the other room and plus-scores are often good scores, even at pairs. Less lazily, you could try to infer the likely auction and play, at the other table. You might consider that ♠ and ♦ part-scores are the most probable alternatives to no-trump. If 2♠ then you've probably won the board, whatever you do. The success of 3♦ on a ♠ lead depends on the ♥ finesse. Even if the ♥-finesse loses, however, there may have been less than perfect defence in the other room. That might sway you towards the finesse. South was brave to discard 2 ♥s from ♥Kxxx, although that may well be the correct tactic, considering the contract.

[gszes]

Many things to consider in a situation like this (in no particular order).

1. Does your contract appear to be "normal"
2. What are the chances your opps can make something
3. SOTM
4. Vulnerability

Vulnerability does not affect YOUR offensive decisions since there
is little difference between down 1 and down 2. The opps being vulnerable
however makes a huge difference when we are defining (2) since the opps
going down 1 in 2s is better for us than 1n making 1.

There seem to be no SOTM considerations here so lets look at
1 and 2. I will start with 2 because it is easier to define.

It looks as if the opps can either make 2 spades or go down 1
depending on the heart hook. This is a pure 50/50 proposition
and guess so let us look at (1) and see if it provides any
info that may tip the balance one way or another.

The bidding at our table rates to be highly different than at the
other tables. The 1c opening (rather than 1d) may have taken away
a balancing opportunity and we may very well have won the board
outright by being allowed to play in 1N. This means making the
contract should take top priority over worrying about overtricks.