BBO Discussion Forums: An interesting suit combination - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

An interesting suit combination

#1 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2012-February-03, 19:02

965 opposite K1072 with plenty of entries to both hands. You need to avoid three losers, and make one trick only.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#2 User is offline   HighLow21 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 781
  • Joined: 2012-January-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-03, 19:59

I would play low to the 7 then low to the 10.
There is a big difference between a good decision and a good result. Let's keep our posts about good decisions rather than "gotcha" results!
0

#3 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,971
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2012-February-04, 01:58

View PostHighLow21, on 2012-February-03, 19:59, said:

I would play low to the 7 then low to the 10.


I know what u are trying to do, u are playing 8 and either Q or J to be onside, the problem is if thats the case dont expect opponents to help you. Assume J appeared when u play small towards KT72, u covered with K and lost to Ace. J can be from stiff, J8, QJ8 QJ8x QJ J8x Jx Not saying u are wrong i didnt calculate the odds, just telling you that u need to be aware of different choice of starts by RHO when u played small from dummy and J or Q appeared.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
0

#4 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2012-February-04, 03:10

Run the 5, covering what RHO plays if he covers, and then run the 6. I win 1 trick by power if the A, Q, J, or 8 is onside.

Edit: I did not see "don't lose 3 tricks". My rambling is irrelevent.

Two lines come to mind: Low to the Ten or finessing against the 8 initially.

finessing against the 8 is necessary when Q8x or J8x or Q8xx or J8xx is onside low to the Ten initially is necessary with QJx onside, or Qx or Jx onside. Without doing calculations, my inclination would be to say that planning on playing low to the Ten then low to the K is better.

Edit2: finesse the 8 also loses to QJ/QJx offsides, assuming the plan is to try and pick up Q8x etc
Chris Gibson
0

#5 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2012-February-04, 05:53

low to T low to K win 50% A on the right,+12% Hx on the right and 12% for QJ(x) on the right so its about 75% I think its going to be tough to beat. I was thinking starting with the 9 but losing to stiff Q/J or losing to Qx/Jx is too much.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#6 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2012-February-04, 12:48

OK, I have more time, let's analyze the relevant scenerios

Finesse the 8 ------- Scenerio (frequency) --------- Low to the 10
Wins ---------------- J8x onside (2) --------------- Loses
Wins ---------------- Q8x onside (2) --------------- Loses
Wins ---------------- J8xx onside (1) -------------- Loses
Wins ---------------- Q8xx onside (1) -------------- Loses
Loses --------------- QJx onside (2) --------------- Wins
Loses --------------- A8x onside (2) --------------- Wins
Loses --------------- Qx onside (2) ---------------- Wins
Loses --------------- Jx onside (2) ---------------- Wins
Loses --------------- Axx onside (1)* -------------- Wins
Loses --------------- A8xx onside (1) -------------- Wins

*Axx onside 'loses' to finessing against the 8 when the opponent wins the first round with the J or Q instead of cheaply with the 8

I don't think I'm missing any relevant scenerios, but if I am so be it. I see 6 combinations where finesse the 8 wins, and 10 where low to the 10 wins. I'm not sure whether relative frequencies of 4-2 or 3-3 splits matter, but I don't think this is close enough for those sorts of adjustments even if they are relevant.
Chris Gibson
0

#7 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-February-04, 13:06

You've missed QJxx onside.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#8 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2012-February-04, 16:15

View PostCSGibson, on 2012-February-04, 12:48, said:

I don't think I'm missing any relevant scenerios, but if I am so be it. I see 6 combinations where finesse the 8 wins, and 10 where low to the 10 wins. I'm not sure whether relative frequencies of 4-2 or 3-3 splits matter, but I don't think this is close enough for those sorts of adjustments even if they are relevant.

Yes I think low to the 10 is right. QJxx, which gnasher points out was missing, improves the line. I got it wrong at the table.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#9 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2012-February-05, 02:11

View Postgnasher, on 2012-February-04, 13:06, said:

You've missed QJxx onside.


Thanks
Chris Gibson
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users