Page 1 of 1
And I'm standing at the crossroads ...believe I'm sinking down
#2
Posted 2010-October-17, 14:39
Start seems simple. Club, diamond to the queen. If it holds, run the heart 7. If not and a club comes back, diamond up and a heart to the queen.
#3
Posted 2010-October-17, 16:57
Many lines come to mind, and I can't say anyone is better than the other.
I wanna get rid of west's entries but I am on the wrong hand for trying it.
ducking a heart also seems reasonable, before the comunications mess up.
I'm really stuck, at MPs I'd go with a simple line with ♦ to the queen just to go with the field.
At IMPs I think I will duck a heart, planning a diamond finese later and a heart finese back if it works.
I wanna get rid of west's entries but I am on the wrong hand for trying it.
ducking a heart also seems reasonable, before the comunications mess up.
I'm really stuck, at MPs I'd go with a simple line with ♦ to the queen just to go with the field.
At IMPs I think I will duck a heart, planning a diamond finese later and a heart finese back if it works.
#4
Posted 2010-October-18, 07:01
Diamond to the queen has the advantage that a decent RHO will often duck if the finesse is off. Then we can revert to hearts.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
#5
Posted 2010-October-18, 07:35
hanp, on Oct 18 2010, 01:01 PM, said:
Diamond to the queen has the advantage that a decent RHO will often duck if the finesse is off. Then we can revert to hearts.
yes but, are you gonna stop finesing after a succesful finese? you might not ever reach ♦A then, there are too many options for me to compute.
#6
Posted 2010-October-18, 08:02
Depends on the opponents and on the tempo, but repeating the finesse is not my plan.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
#7
Posted 2010-October-18, 08:57
hanp, on Oct 18 2010, 08:01 AM, said:
Diamond to the queen has the advantage that a decent RHO will often duck if the finesse is off. Then we can revert to hearts.
Yes but an even better RHO might win the diamond and play one back which may force you to abandon a winner.
Hi y'all!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#8
Posted 2010-October-18, 10:12
low to the 7 of hearts looks really cool. I hope there will be some smart people who choose it
edit: yay Fluffy already did
BTW maybe the 9 of hearts would make some LHO's go up with the king from some holdings?
edit: yay Fluffy already did
BTW maybe the 9 of hearts would make some LHO's go up with the king from some holdings?
This post has been edited by gwnn: 2010-October-18, 10:14
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#9
Posted 2010-October-18, 10:39
I don't think attacking diamonds now is the best line. You're short on entries.
I am going to play a heart up. This feels like one of those hands where you give up early losers to set up the contract to exactly make.
I am going to play a heart up. This feels like one of those hands where you give up early losers to set up the contract to exactly make.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#10
Posted 2010-October-23, 10:06
I am with teh ppl who think attacking diamonds is wrong, but I will start with ace of hearts Q of hearts as 3 hearts will probably be enough. Ace of hearts diamodn to the Q and a small heart up is also a contender. Ace of hearts small heart will win vs any stiff honour or any 3-3 break or Jx or Tx. ducking gets Kx only, but you do get to play Kxx for one loser rather than two which may be important at MP. Ace then small to the queen also picks up Kx onside, and plays Kxx onside for one loser, so its probably best, but cannot be much in it.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
Page 1 of 1
3N by South. ♣10 lead. RHO plays the 4. Plan the play.
Would you take a different approach at IMPs?