[bluecalm]

---

The lead is K♦.
Declarer reasons: "If Q♠ is onside I'am home w/e happens in hearts so let's assume it's offside. In that case there are Q♥, A♠ and A♣ not yet located. Opening leader needs 2 of those 3 cards to have opening bid. As out of 3 possible combinations two contains Q♥ I will play heart to the king and finesse."

Is it correct? If you answer yes but I tell you that opponents are Meckwell and any 11pc makes an opening (making KQJ♦, ♣AJ is an opening bid) do you still believe in it ? Do you finesse or play for drop ?

This is real hand and top player got it wrong (in fact vs Meckwell) and I believe he made a mistake.
Your opinion ?

[gnasher]

How many diamonds did 1♦ and 2♦ show? What's their notrump range? Did the double of 4♦ suggest a save? How did West signal at trick one, and what did it mean?

If you finesse in hearts, you're playing for West to have a singleton heart, so presumably 3145 or 3154. That may be consistent with the bidding, or it may not.

[bluecalm]

I asked general question first with standard agreements so 1D 4+ etc.
As to how it went at the table:

Quote

How many diamonds did 1♦ and 2♦ show? What's their notrump range? Did the double of 4♦ suggest a save? How did West signal at trick one, and what did it mean?

1D = 2+ diamonds
2D = nat, NF, 5+diamonds
double for 4D doesn't suggest a save just lead directing;

Quote

How did West signal at trick one, and what did it mean?

I wasn't at the table but knowing (from watching them) Meckwell, W signalled count. (five of them not surprisingly)

Quote

so presumably 3145 or 3154. That may be consistent with the bidding, or it may not.

5 diamonds, as 1D is 2+. 3C would be 5-4 in minors, that's true and I missed that; still they are vulnerable so I doubt they would venture 3C on hands like Qxx x xxxxx AJxx.

[gnasher]

Most hands with a singleton heart and five diamonds would find a way to bid to the three-level. For example, I think the 3154 hand you gave is a clear 3♣ bid, given that they've got the method available. Hence I'd play for the drop.

Going back to your original question, if you know that East has two out of three specific cards, then he's more likely than his partner to hold any one of them. It's equivalent to knowing that a suit where you're missing the king is split 1=2: x-Kx is twice as likely as K-xx. So yes the logic is fine, but on this deal I think the inferences from the bidding are more significant.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Most hands with a singleton heart and five diamonds would find a way to bid to the three-level. For example, I think the 3154 hand you gave is a clear 3♣ bid, given that they've got the method available. Hence I'd play for the drop.

I really doubt it. 1D is 2+. They are vulnerable and could end up in 7card fit at 3 level.
3♣ is certainly very aggressive bid and probably just reckless opposite 1D from precision.

[FM75]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-08, 05:44, said:

...
Declarer reasons: "If Q♠ is onside I'am home w/e happens in hearts so let's assume it's offside. In that case there are Q♥, A♠ and A♣ not yet located. Opening leader needs 2 of those 3 cards to have opening bid. As out of 3 possible combinations two contains Q♥ I will play heart to the king and finesse."
...

I suspect you are questioning this specific inference. It is ok, if during the play declarer first verifies his assumption that the spade Q is offside. Without that, the conclusion as to the conditional probability of the heart Q location is an error.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It is ok, if during the play declarer first verifies his assumption that the spade Q is offside. Without that, the conclusion as to the conditional probability of the heart Q location is an error.

Why ? Conditional probability is just that: assuming something is true, no need to verify.
This is by the way an error in many bridge books. If you have 2 close lines but one of them becomes 100% if you for example A♣ is on your right (but it being on your left don't give you information) the books tells you to check it while you could just play for potentially 100% line without checking anything.
I guess my main doubt is if this argument is strong enough to play for finesse instead of drop on this particular deal assuming that KQJ A J is auto opening bid.

[Siegmund]

At first glance, the argument looked entirely bogus to me.

Suppose instead that declarer reasoned "if the HQ is right then I can afford to lose 2 spades and a club, so assume I have a sure trump loser", therefore assumed HQ was wrong, and concluded there was a 2/3 chance of the spade finesse working.

The evidence you actually have, it appears, is that 2 of 4 key cards have to be with East for him to have an opening, and 2 of 4 key cards have to be with West for him to have a response. You can debate the odds of a subminimum opening vs a subminimum response, and perhaps conclude that an ace and a queen each is most likely, but opener could have two aces and responder two queens but not vice
versa.

On digging deeper, your original conclusion resurfaces as true:

If responder has only HQ, you will be fine no matter how you play hearts, since you will finesse in spades.
If responder has only SQ, it may be necessary to finesse in hearts to pick up trumps.
If responder has both, it may be necessary to play for the drop in hearts.

Only-HQ, accompanied by one ace, happens in two (irrelevant) ways;
Only-SQ, accompanied by one ace, happens in two ways;
Both-queens, with both aces with opener, happens in only one way.
...so we finesse, taking the line that caters to more cases.


So,on reflection, the original argument reached the right conclusion, though it's not 100% clear to me if that is because it was solid, or just because it got lucky that it hadn't overlooked anything. To my mind it makes more sense to consider all six honor divisions and rule some out as irrelevant or impossible, rather than leaping to a conclusion about SQ first, but as long as your argument doesn't confuse you...

[bluecalm]

Quote

So,on reflection, the original argument reached the right conclusion, though it's not 100% clear to me if that is because it was solid, or just because it got lucky that it hadn't overlooked anything.

Imagine two worlds:
a)World A, where Q♠ is offside
b)World B, where Q♠ is onside

We need to maximize our payoff in both A and B but we have to make the same play in both of them.
As in world B we always score the game regardless of what we do, our considerations should focus on how to maximize the payoff in world A and in world A Q♥ is with opening leader 2/3 of the time

Now the question is if that 2/3 shrinks enough after we add that ♦KQJ, A♠, J♣ is an opening bid and that with 2-1-5-5 for example 2♦ bidder would jump to 3♣

Interesting hand. I (I watch vugraphs from perspective of one player, card by card) got it right (or I lucked out) and Bocchi got it wrong. It would be nice to ask him if he made a mistake or saw something I don't see.
Knowing standard of Bocchi's cardplay (this guy is really something else if you ever doubt cardplay brings the most imps in bridge even at high level watch him play) I have my doubts even with such clear (!?) reasoning as presented in my OP.

As it happens in other room other world class declarer, Jacek Pszczola had similar problem. At his table the bidding went:

1♦* dbl 3♣** 3♦
pass 3♥ pass 4♥

* - 4+
** -I don't know, probably mixed raise

He got it right. Unfortunately without knowing what 3♣ is it's difficult to say if his task was easier or not. That hand was decisive in Mahaffey - Lavazza mach during recent Open European Championship.

[awm]

The reasoning holds, but is weakened by the jacks. Basically, if East has both jacks he doesn't need the ♥Q so it's just a toss-up, whereas if he doesn't have both jacks it's 2/3. So it ends up being less than 2/3 but still more than half. However, this assumes that East is equally likely to hold any of these cards, and because of shape restrictions that is not really true!

The shape reasoning is better. West is very unlikely to be 5-5 in the minors, because he would probably bid 3♣ with that. He is also quite unlikely to have four spades; he would surely have showed spades in the bidding with AQxx, and if East has stiff spade ace he might've lead it (hoping to continue diamond to the ace, spade ruff), and if East has stiff spade queen we can pick up the spade suit for one loser in any case (assuming careful play).

It follows that East has five diamonds, at least four clubs, and at least two spades. He can't have three hearts, so we'd best hope they are 2-2.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It follows that East has five diamonds

Do you mean in standard bidding or in real hand ?
Meckwell play 1D as 2+ so 2D is 5+ so (and signal to 1st trick I mentioned in my 2nd post) makes it about 100% that diamonds are 5-4 with 5 in W hand.
That leaves 3-1-5-4 possibility for W (with E being 2-3-4-4).

I wonder that if we assume that spades are either 3-2 or 2-3 and diamonds are 100% 5-4 + W is not 5-5 in minors + my honor card argument if that makes the play clear.

[awm]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-08, 11:09, said:

Do you mean in standard bidding or in real hand ?
Meckwell play 1D as 2+ so 2D is 5+ so (and signal to 1st trick I mentioned in my 2nd post) makes it about 100% that diamonds are 5-4 with 5 in W hand.
That leaves 3-1-5-4 possibility for W (with E being 2-3-4-4).

I wonder that if we assume that spades are either 3-2 or 2-3 and diamonds are 100% 5-4 + my honor card argument if that makes the play clear.

Okay, misread something. But still, if you look at the possible patterns:

2344 (vs 3154 that didn't bid 3♣)
2245 (vs 3253)
3244 (vs 2254 that didn't bid 3♣)

Only one of these shapes includes three hearts, and it is the one opposite which West is most likely to have bid 3♣.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, that looks like strong argument to me.
Even if we assume W never jumps with only 5-4 in minors vulnerable with apparently only 7points it still looks good.
So now, how do I combine it with honors argument to make final conclusion ?

[bluecalm]

Ok so I dealt 100 hands with the assumptions:

W: Q♠, 6-9hcp, exactly 5diamonds, not 5-5 in minors, no 4spades, no 4 hearts
E: 11-15hcp but not 14+ balanced. KQ of diamonds (or KQJ)

It was 24 to 13 for a finesse in hands that mattered.

[whereagles]

Just force out the club ace and take it from there

[gnasher]

whereagles, on 2012-January-08, 12:02, said:

Just force out the club ace and take it from there

East wins and switches to a low spade.

[Tomi2]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-08, 10:47, said:

Imagine two worlds:
a)World A, where Q♠ is offside
b)World B, where Q♠ is onside

We need to maximize our payoff in both A and B but we have to make the same play in both of them.
As in world B we always score the game regardless of what we do, our considerations should focus on how to maximize the payoff in world A and in world A Q♥ is with opening leader 2/3 of the time

Now the question is if that 2/3 shrinks enough after we add that ♦KQJ, A♠, J♣ is an opening bid and that with 2-1-5-5 for example 2♦ bidder would jump to 3♣

Interesting hand. I (I watch vugraphs from perspective of one player, card by card) got it right (or I lucked out) and Bocchi got it wrong. It would be nice to ask him if he made a mistake or saw something I don't see.
Knowing standard of Bocchi's cardplay (this guy is really something else if you ever doubt cardplay brings the most imps in bridge even at high level watch him play) I have my doubts even with such clear (!?) reasoning as presented in my OP.

As it happens in other room other world class declarer, Jacek Pszczola had similar problem. At his table the bidding went:

1♦* dbl 3♣** 3♦
pass 3♥ pass 4♥

* - 4+
** -I don't know, probably mixed raise

He got it right. Unfortunately without knowing what 3♣ is it's difficult to say if his task was easier or not. That hand was decisive in Mahaffey - Lavazza mach during recent Open European Championship.

I remember the hand as I was sitting in the onside Vugraph. Pszcolas table finished earlier, so he came in to watch the other table playing and he was suprised, that the Italian did not win this contract. His words were "I obviously finessed in hearts" so for him it was the clear better play

[whereagles]

gnasher, on 2012-January-08, 12:33, said:

East wins and switches to a low spade.

Looks like East has Axx of spades (I don't think he's playing from AQx). I'm gonna take the king and finesse hearts. Reason: with 2 aces and diamond jack he'll probably need an extra queen to open. If LHO happens to have led from ♦Kxxxx or RHO does have ♠AQx, well tough luck.