[phil_20686]

I quite like this one:

AKTx
Jx Qx
xxxxx

when declarer plays a club up you can insert the J. Then he has to worry if you have been clueless from QJx. I have seen it work before.

Most of the good falscards are more about controlling the hand, for example:

K98x
JTxx
AQ76

If they cash the Ace, you can control the entry position by dropping the J. The will cross to the K in case rho has Txxx, but sometimes it benefits your to make him use an entry for no reason.

[semeai]

 phil_20686, on 2012-August-17, 10:11, said:

I quite like this one:

AKTx
Jx Qx
xxxxx

when declarer plays a club up you can insert the J. Then he has to worry if you have been clueless from QJx. I have seen it work before.

Nice one.

Quote

Most of the good falscards are more about controlling the hand, for example:

K98x
JTxx
AQ76

If they cash the Ace, you can control the entry position by dropping the J. The will cross to the K in case rho has Txxx, but sometimes it benefits your to make him use an entry for no reason.

Slightly risky. I guess a related falsecard then is that with some of Jx, Tx, Jxx, or Txx in the same spot you drop the J/T (sort of like dropping the J in your first example).

[Zelandakh]

I have added phil's first but I have a question about the second. Did you mean Txx? When declarer plays the 6 they will know partner cannot have Txxx once you play a low card on this trick. Does this also mean that holding Jx or Tx in this position, the honour is a mandatory falsecard too?

[phil_20686]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-September-03, 03:55, said:

I have added phil's first but I have a question about the second. Did you mean Txx? When declarer plays the 6 they will know partner cannot have Txxx once you play a low card on this trick. Does this also mean that holding Jx or Tx in this position, the honour is a mandatory falsecard too?

You only have to drop from those positions some of the time. In reality, I have yet to meet a declarer who will believe that you dropped an honour from JTxx giving up a "certain trick", as it were. Most of these positions about what you would do in other positions is a bit irrelevant, since you seldom play any other pair enough times for the other case to come up.

Playing the ten from Tx is not that uncommon, for example.

[Zelandakh]

This example, as well as Phil's previous entry about winning the A from AQx, seem to move us firmly into the shadowy area of non-mandatory falsecards. I have been thnking about the best way to handle these and it seems to me that listing specific cases is likely to be too difficult and long-winded. So I have added a further category for these and will try to prune them down to general themes, which I hope will keep everything manageable and still concise enough to be useful to readers.

[han]

As for playing the card you are known to hold, last weekend in the White House Top 12 this position came up:

---

Declarer led a club to his jack, west winning the ace. Later declarer entered dummy again and played a second low club. East played the spade queen. Now declarer had to go back to dummy in case clubs were 4-2, which was inconvenient. Although the result wasn't spectacular, I thought it was a cool falsecard.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah that is more standard when they have AKQx opp Txx and you drop the jack on the second round to force them to play low to the ten when its inconvenient.

[phil_20686]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-September-06, 11:48, said:

Yeah that is more standard when they have AKQx opp Txx and you drop the jack on the second round to force them to play low to the ten when its inconvenient.

This has never occurred to me. I will add it to my list of plays I wish to make at the table.

[han]

This summer Cecilia Rimstedt made a play similar to the one suggested by Phil_20686 above. I think it was something like this:

---

When south led a spade up, Cecilia played the 10 as west. Declarer won, and when Cecilia was on lead later she played a low spade to partner's jack.

[CSGibson]

On Thursday I made a common falsecard which has not been brought up.

---

I led a club, declarer winning with his Q and immediately playing a club back up. I ruffed, played ♦AK (declarer's Q falling on the 2nd round), and continued with the ♦J, declarer ruffing. Declarer now played a heart up in this position:

---

Declarer was obviously going to finesse the ♥K, if I play the ♥9 he know's its safe to cash the ace and then run clubs through partner's presumed ♥J. As it was, I played the ♥K, the card I was about to be known to hold, to give declarer the choice of playing partner for J9xx of hearts, in which case he has to run clubs through partner now. Declarer believed my K, we got an extra trick. (though, as an aside, if I were going to play partner for the J of hearts, then I misdefended; I should have led a low diamond to make it obvious for partner to trump with the J, and then give me another club ruff in return)

Its a common position in books to play the highest trump honor so that declarer believes you are out and not a threat to ruff, but I didn't see it brought up here yet.

[MrAce]

These are (below) not mandatory (Class E in OP) and you may choose to play differently depending on position.

---

Play the K and pretend like you have KQx (same goes for QTx) when declarer (south) plays low towards dummy

---

Play low when declarer (south) plays small to dummy.

[CSGibson]

As a defender, you might steal an extra trick in these positions:

---

Lead the J of spades, then continue with the 4, hoping they think that 1) you are an idiot, and 2) partner ducked his ace.

---

Lead the Q of spades, hoping they play you for QJ9 & duck in dummy. Follow with a low spade

[Fluffy]

As declarer you manage this suit:

K10xx

Q9xx


or maybe this one

K10xx

QJxx

in both cases you start with low to the queen and lead the suit again, LHO pitches

Now in both cases you have ot play the king so that LHO doesn't see the Jack

[gwnn]

How about

Kxx
opp
xxx

LHO leading Q small small small , J small small small then Ace? Has anyone done this? I am always afraid as declarer of this but no one dares to do it, it seems.

[CSGibson]

 gwnn, on 2012-October-30, 18:23, said:

How about

Kxx
opp
xxx

LHO leading Q small small small , J small small small then Ace? Has anyone done this? I am always afraid as declarer of this but no one dares to do it, it seems.

I've done it a couple of times, and I've seen a partner do it also.

[Vampyr]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-30, 18:35, said:

I've done it a couple of times, and I've seen a partner do it also.

Same here, and I had it done against me recently -- but it was my own stupid fault for not covering the second time.

[gwnn]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-31, 03:43, said:

Same here, and I had it done against me recently -- but it was my own stupid fault for not covering the second time.

Why stupid? It just depends on which you deem more likely, AQJ(...) in LHO or Ax in RHO.

[twoshy]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-08, 08:10, said:

snip

Leading the J from AJx may be even better when dummy has K9x or Q9x. When dummy has anything less than the 9 as the intermediate card, it will be very hard for declarer to guess this correctly when you hit the magic layout, since the J is a normal switch (whereas the J may seem like a bit of a Greek gift with the 9 visible in dummy). However, you have to weigh up the risk if the auction marks you for not having extra length in the suit; declarer might have no choice but to rise on the second round if he lacks the 9.

[Fluffy]

 gwnn, on 2012-October-31, 03:44, said:

Why stupid? It just depends on which you deem more likely, AQJ(...) in LHO or Ax in RHO.

Sometimes covering catters for both holdings

[JLOGIC]

 gwnn, on 2012-October-30, 18:23, said:

How about

Kxx
opp
xxx

LHO leading Q small small small , J small small small then Ace? Has anyone done this? I am always afraid as declarer of this but no one dares to do it, it seems.

Yes Just do it every time it goes preempt all pass and you have aqj in a side suit lol