[Trumpace]

I think I saw this in a book by Charles Goren. Not sure of the name of the book, or the exact hand.

Playing rubber bridge, you are South, in 3NT and LHO leads a heart.

You see:

Scoring: Rubber

LHO leads the HQ.

---

Plan the play.

(As usual, adv/+ please don't post answers {hidden or otherwise} too early)

[vuroth]

At first glance,

Spoiler

I win in hand, cash the KQD, and concede a club.

When I'm back in, I can cross to the KH, try the AD. If the JD has not fallen, I can try the club finesse.

Far from cold, but I give myself some chances to make - singleton KC, diamonds 3-2, singleton JD or club finesse on.

[pooltuna]

Trumpace, on Nov 4 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

I think I saw this in a book by Charles Goren. Not sure of the name of the book, or the exact hand.

Playing rubber bridge, you are South, in 3NT and LHO leads a heart.

You see:

Scoring: Rubber

LHO leads the HQ.

---

Plan the play.

(As usual, adv/+ please don't post answers {hidden or otherwise} too early)

oops trying to hide it in the edit not that the answer gives away much

Spoiler

I plan to make the %age minor suit play which I think starts off with winning the ♥ in hand and playing K♦ and overtaking the Q if J or 9 drops you rate to have 9. but first may need to cash the ♣Ace. Just a quick and dirty gut reaction

[ArtK78]

I like pooltuna's line, provided that it includes the last part.

[jdonn]

I will just mention I think there is much more to this hand than first appears. Which is not to say the line I believe Goren recommends is wrong, but it takes a fair amount of analysis to determine.

[vuroth]

ArtK78, on Nov 4 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

I like pooltuna's line, provided that it includes the last part.

Why? Isn't

Spoiler

the point of the diamond overtake to finesse clubs before we lose control of hearts?

So why lose control of clubs then? Or are we banking on clubs not being dangerous based on the opening lead?

[helene_t]

Spoiler

Win trick 1 in hand and play ♦KQ. If the nine falls in trick 2 or West plays it in trick 3, I overtake and concede a diamond.

Otherwise I will have to let ♦Q keep trick 3 and do something with clubs. Now I must try to get as much information as possible about the clubs so I can make an informed decision on whether to cash ♦A after the continue hearts. I think I cache ♣A and play a low club to the 9.

[ArtK78]

vuroth, on Nov 4 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 4 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

I like pooltuna's line, provided that it includes the last part.

Why? Isn't

Spoiler

the point of the diamond overtake to finesse clubs before we lose control of hearts?

So why lose control of clubs then? Or are we banking on clubs not being dangerous based on the opening lead?

Spoiler

Playing a club towards the Q after cashing the A is just as much a finesse as if you did not cash the A first; however, it gives you the slight extra chance of the K being singleton on your left.

[vuroth]

Ok, I think I get it now. If the 9 or J falls first round, we're catering to a 4-1 split, by conceding a trick while keeping an entry.

As for the club ace, cashing it might be bad if LHO has KJTx, as we would lose control of the suit - never good in notrump. Of course, this is unlikely to happen from the opening lead. Plus, if it does happen, we'll know before we play the queen, and we can duck, barring LHO from running the suit.

[Fluffy]

helene your line has many flaws IMO. Think about it again

[Old York]

In the original hand, was not ♦9 in dummy?

With ♦9, the hand is a Rubber Bridge/Imp problem
Without, it becomes a probability problem and any mention of Rubber Bridge is a red-herring

Tony

[helene_t]

(deleted)

[Phil]

Old York, on Nov 5 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

In the original hand, was not ♦9 in dummy?

No. I have the book too.

[Old York]

Phil, on Nov 5 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Old York, on Nov 5 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

In the original hand, was not ♦9 in dummy?

No. I have the book too.

So why specific to Rubber? or what have I missed?

Spoiler

Either way it cannot cost to duck a club after cashing ♦KQ, overtaking with ♦Ace would be recommended on a different layout

Scoring: Rubber

Ron Klinger hand
3NT:Spade lead

---

As usual, RK gives a superb example which also shows the difference between Imp and MP declarer play

Tony
p.s. What is BBO policy on reproducing hands which are the intellectual property of others, and may even be copyrighted?
p.p.s I do have RK's express permission to reproduce his hands on BBO (for teaching purposes)

[MattieShoe]

I'm guessing the hand itself is not intellectual property, just the analysis of it -- I don't see how it could be protected any more than a random sequence of coin flips. Then again, IANAL and sometimes the law is stupid.

[Trumpace]

Old York, on Nov 5 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

In the original hand, was not ♦9 in dummy?

With ♦9, the hand is a Rubber Bridge/Imp problem
Without, it becomes a probability problem and any mention of Rubber Bridge is a red-herring

Tony

There is no ♦9.

I don't understand the Rubber Bridge comment!

[Old York]

Trumpace, on Nov 6 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Old York, on Nov 5 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

In the original hand, was not ♦9 in dummy?

With ♦9, the hand is a Rubber Bridge/Imp problem
Without, it becomes a probability problem and any mention of Rubber Bridge is a red-herring

Tony

There is no ♦9.

I don't understand the Rubber Bridge comment!

No worries. You semed to be emphasizing Rubber Bridge by mentioning it twice

A rubber bridge problem, as presented in most books and magazines, is a problem with only one possible answer which guarantees the contract against any possible distribution of the unseen hands. These problems often involve taking a seemingly unusual line, which often involve giving away a seemingly unnecessary trick as an insurance policy

Tony

If you examine the hand I posted, you will see that it is correct to cash ♣KQ at matchpoint scoring, even though this may lead to defeat, but at Rubber/Teams/Imps you should overtake with Ace and allow opponents to have their ♣J, which ensures 9 trick

[helene_t]

Tony, I don't think you should read too much into the fact that it was stated as a rubber bridge problem.

"Test your declarer play" in Bridge World has matchpoint problems and rubber problems, no IMP problems. Maybe it is a tradition that goes back to the time when rubber bridge was more popular (like the time when Goren's book was written). Maybe it is to simplify things: In rubber bridge you (almost) always go for the safety play, at IMPs it is sometimes less clear.

In any case, most problems that a brought as rubber problems might as well be IMP problems, and v.v. And even if this problem happens to have a different optimum for rubber than for IMPs, there is no suggestion that a 100% line exists. Maybe the best you can get is 95% and that is what you should go for at rubber. In that case you should probably go for the same line at IMPs, although there might be a 90% line that is better at IMPs.