[MickyB]

I'd be tempted to drop if the poor RHO played low-then-ten, otherwise I think I'd always finesse.

[mikeh]

Unless I really feel that I know RHO, my general rule is that I don't allow an opp's headgames to deflect me from the 'normal' line.

In all cases but perhaps the last, had the 10 appeared on the second round, and with no other info at hand, it seems normal to finesse against the J on round 3.

So by deciding, in any of the scenarios, to play for the drop, I am allowing RHO's order of play from 10x to determine my line, and I won't do it.

If RHO is a good player, then no way am I giving him the satifaction of deflecting me from the technically correct line. If he is a really bad player, then his 10x line suggests doubleton anyway.

The last scenario, in which a bad player plays x10 is a little more interesting, and would be even more interesting if he had played xJ. However, I am still hooking, because I really don't want to lose to J10x against a bad player. Had he played xJ, I would have hooked, if I felt he was truly bad.

[Apollo81]

Are we assuming you have enough entries to the hand with K98x to enter that hand and lead low towards Qx or Qxx in hand if you want to?

The one scenario I can think of where you *might* play for the drop is if he thinks you're bad and plays Tx. If he thinks you're bad then he may think you'll believe his count signal, and he may think you will play QAK as your "normal" line. Also remember his partner is bad so if he held Tx maybe he thinks you had Qxx and led the Q and his bad partner ducked with AJxx. He wont play the ten from Tx here I dont think, but even with all this crap it is a close decision..

[gnasher]

Can I assume that this is notrumps, there is no problem with entries to either hand, and it doesn't matter to the opponents in which order they take their winners? In other words, that if RHO is looking at Jx, 10x or J10x, he will know that my only relevant holding is AQx?

[pclayton]

Does dummy have entries? Only a really bad player would be giving count at the 1st round of the suit if Declarer can get to the board.

I think if RHO sucks (or isn't imaginative), and played x - T, I would probably hook and play restricted choice. If this same player played 10-x, I would definitely go for the RC.

If RHO is good and think I suck (which is most good players) and played T - x, I would play RC, since it appears he it trying to trap me into a losing line. If he played x - 10, I'd be a little more suspicious, but I imagine I'd still hook, but its close.

If RHO is good and thinks I'm good it probably doesn't matter what he plays.

[cherdano]

How does it matter which count they play? Surely if LHO doesn't know what count is, then RHO will know that and never give count himself? (Weak players are even less likely to watch count signals than to give them.)

[kfay]

If RHO thinks I suck then I'm always hooking when he plays either way because he didn't play the JACK and he 'knows' that's what I'm looking for because...well... I suck.

If RHO sucks I'll play for drop come x-10 but not 10-x since this is such an obviously odd way to play for him because...well... he sucks.

If RHO is good and thinks I'm good I'm always hooking. Mirror comments in the form of 'what does it matter?' and 'restricted choice.'

[655321]

Finesse in every case.

[Cascade]

RHO can play his games I will still play with the odds and finesse.

[655321]

I just play the normal line, probably for all of Justin's reasons. I don't know why people might choose to play one card rather than another, so rather than try to figure it out I just play percentage (percentage with no external information), since I don't think that (for me) there are extra chances.

It is interesting, though, that in this example the only case that Justin gains an edge is when RHO is a good player who thinks declarer is a bad player. It seems to me that in real life, for a number of posters here, and Jlall more than most, it will be pretty rare (if ever) that this condition is met.

[kenrexford]

Given what I know so far, I do not have any reason to yet suppose that RHO places me with AQx in the suit. If I have Qxx only, then playing the 10 or the Jack from Hx threatens to give me the suit for no apparent reason and is retarded. So, I'd suspect that either play, then small, was from J10x.

However, after seeing this nonsense play, my character is such (admittedly, not proud) that I would laugh at the table upon seeing the pip as the second card, noting thereby how silly this play has been. I'd then go with the odds and finesse, because either play by RHO is equally dumb. He either made a nonsense and unnecessary falsecard or he jeopardized the entire suit, either way stupid.

Of course, I'd also find 10 from J10x stupid as possibly giving up a trick. I mean, assume K98x opposite Qxx. Small to the Queen loses to the Ace. Might declarer double-hook the suit? Of course he might. Playing the Jack or Ten takes away a losing option from Declarer.

So, no matter how I assess this thing, I cannot see how the parameters of the question are plausible. How can RHO be a "good player?" Or, am I missing something here???

[kenrexford]

OK. Thought this through a little.

IF the RHO is a good player, and IF he knows that I must have at least the Ace, then playing the top honor from two is absurd. So, he must have J10x. But, he must also deem me an idiot. As that assessment is not implausible, I might play for the drop. However, I might also loss-leader this thing and make him keep thinking I am an idiot, and gullible, if that might help me more in the long run on a different hand.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry again.

If he has the ten and not the jack, then on the first round I could have QJx.

If I have QJx, I have several ways to play it. One would be to play the queen, and when it rides, finesse the 9. I don't think that's worse odds than playing Q, then J taken by the ace, then finesse later.

So I don't think Tx is possible if he plays the ten on the first round, because it might cost a trick. So therefore I can play for the drop. It's one thing to be cute, it's another thing to be cute when it could cost a trick.

Or am I to assume that he knows my holding?

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 7 2008, 11:51 PM, said:

When it goes queen low low then RHO knows you have the ace.

Good point.

So, why am I advertising my holdings here?

If I play Ace first, I might have Axx, in which case playing the 10 or Jack would be suicidal if from 10x/Jx. Playing the Ace somewhat forces honesty from Hx, but it allows foolishness from J10x. Playing the Queen allows foolishness from any holding.

I suppose that I was missing something. Your Queen play may have been a deliberate attempt to induce a "tricky play" from RHO because of a suspicion of his character???

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Feb 7 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

To the camp that believes "RHO can play mind games and I will stick to my unexploitable strategy," why do you think this?

Do you feel that you are not good enough to exploit RHO more often than he can exploit you (not intended to be an insult btw, greatly respect some of the people who said this)? Is this because your skills are much more technical than psychological? Or you feel like you have no edge and you will waste energy pointlessly?

.

For me, it is a combination of these factors.

There are times, especially against players I know to be weak, that I will indulge in psychologically motivated ploys instead of the best technical line, but I am far more comfortable with my technical skills than my table-presence.

Against the bad opps, I am not going to depart from my normal line unless I think he is truly weak. Against the strong player, I am simply not going to risk his mindgame working on me. The downside to his mindgame working is worse, in my view, than the upside of my outsmarting him.

And, I think that engaging in spy v spy headgames is generally a waste of energy.

I guess if I spent more time playing poker, I'd acquire the skills to read the opps more... not a shot at anyone who plays poker... btw... but that is a game, so I am told, in which this aspect of the game is more important than at bridge.... and there are times when I wish I had more confidence in my table presence.

[gnasher]

A good player who thinks I'm a good player (supposing that such a misguided individual existed) should adopt a consistent strategy with Jx, 10x or J10x, so whether he plays low-10 or 10-low is irrelevant. I just go with the odds, which is to finesse.

I have no idea whether a good player who thinks I'm a bad player would vary this, so again I'd just go with the odds.

It's dangerous to try to get inside the head of a very bad player - you might not be able to find the way out again. Against a clueless RHO, I would play him for 10x in either case, partly because of the odds, and partly because with J10x he would tend to play low-jack rather than low-10 or 10-low.

Conversely, if he played low-J, I'd at least think about playing him for J10x. Mostly, though, I'd think about why I was playing in an event where this person was allowed to play, and how long it was until the next break.

There is another category of player, who has read some books but doesn't really understand what he has read or how to apply it, who will tend to play the jack or 10 from J10x because he knows that in some situations this is a mandatory falsecard, but isn't up to working out that this isn't one of them. Against such a player, if he played a high one on the first round I would play him for J10x, and if he played low-high I would play him for Hx.