[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-September-25, 05:56, said:

Isn't that what 5♥ would mean? On general principles, if you just want partner to bid slam with a max, you make a try and then sign off, whereas cue-bidding implies interest in specific cards.

That's not how I do it, and it's certainly not how Gunnar does. 5♦ tells North the ♦Q or better still QJxxx is huge. 5♥ just says bid on if max, but for me it denies AKx of diamonds. In an ideal world, 5♣ would show interest in spade cards.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-September-25, 02:20, said:

If you have J AKxxx AKxxx Kx, you have two chances to make the contract: diamonds coming in, or East ducking with ♣A. If you want to encourage East to duck with ♣A, you should play as though you have J AKxxx AKx QJxx.

Here is what you say and what i say, and i dont know why we cant agree, since i never said hoping up the ace is a crime. You asked a question and i answered it, you also asked the reason, i answered that too.

Andy - Declarer would/should play the way he did when he wants us to duck the club Ace - True

Timo - Sometimes, actually much more often than psycological strategy (or w/e you call it) purposes, declarers dont clear the trumps because they need to use them for ruffing purposes.

If this dude did not clear trumps for the reasons you are anticipating, he got me bro. If you were my pd and hoped up the ace and let them make it, i wouldnt say a word and i would totally understand you when u explain me why u did it, if you ducked the ace and let them make it i would feel the same. I dunno how we are supposed to solve from the auction which one is better, but i have a feeling that you are about to tell me soon that my analysis of the auction was way off. Because you sound like you are trying to give me a hint about how to figure minor holdings of declarer but to be honest, i admit, i cant see it.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-September-24, 14:33, said:

Has anyone yet suggested a layout where ducking gains, other than saying "it's always right to duck in this sort of position"?

Edit: yes I see some suggestions, generally when declarer has Qxxx clubs

KJxx
QJxx
Qxxx

and some 5 card clubs too

[JLOGIC]

MrAce, on 2012-September-26, 04:05, said:

Andy - Declarer would/should play the way he did when he wants us to duck the club Ace - True

Timo - Sometimes, actually much more often than psycological strategy (or w/e you call it) purposes, declarers dont clear the trumps because they need to use them for ruffing purposes.

If this dude did not clear trumps for the reasons you are anticipating, he got me bro.

Man plus freaking 1 million. This is just spot on. On a good day we remember to play the correct order of cards in order to maximize our deceptive chances, but on every single day we remember not to pull trumps when we have 4 clubs. Nobody is making strong subtle deceptive plays all of the time imo, but they are making the normal technical plays (not pulling too many trumps).

[JLOGIC]

BTW clee was over at my house when we read this hand, and I offered to lay 5:1 that declarer has stiff J of spades so curious to see if I lose that one lol. I think the real odds are like 20:1. Given declarer being 1-5 in the majors, 3-4 is really not an unlikely scenario.

[JLOGIC]

PhilKing, on 2012-September-24, 14:22, said:

Most of these hands would just punt slam after partner bids 4♠.

Gunnar bid 5♦ because he needed extra playing strength opposite so that he could handle the club losers.

Yes, I do not know what to make of the bidding, but generally I think the 5D bidder is trying to stop in 5 if partner signs off and wouldn't have the nutterball hand types, and is more likely to have 1534 needing extra strength as you say.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-September-26, 04:05, said:

I dunno how we are supposed to solve from the auction which one is better, but i have a feeling that you are about to tell me soon that my analysis of the auction was way off. Because you sound like you are trying to give me a hint about how to figure minor holdings of declarer but to be honest, i admit, i cant see it.

No, not at all - I don't think there's a definite solution to this problem. I posted it because I wanted to hear people's reasoning.

Declarer's actual hand was J AK10xx AKx QJxx, so ducking would have worked.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-September-26, 04:55, said:

No, not at all - I don't think there's a definite solution to this problem. I posted it because I wanted to hear people's reasoning.

Declarer's actual hand was J AK10xx AKx QJxx, so ducking would have worked.

A possible hand which Mr Ace quoted in his first answer, I believe!

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2012-September-26, 04:41, said:

BTW clee was over at my house when we read this hand, and I offered to lay 5:1 that declarer has stiff J of spades so curious to see if I lose that one lol. I think the real odds are like 20:1. Given declarer being 1-5 in the majors, 3-4 is really not an unlikely scenario.

3=4 is a priori more likely than 4=3. But it's not enough for him to be 4=3: he also needs to be missing the king, or to be about to misguess. Ducking works against all 4=3s, so if we were to ignore inferences from the bidding that would probably make the odds fairly even.

Quote

Man plus freaking 1 million. This is just spot on. On a good day we remember to play the correct order of cards in order to maximize our deceptive chances, but on every single day we remember not to pull trumps when we have 4 clubs. Nobody is making strong subtle deceptive plays all of the time imo, but they are making the normal technical plays (not pulling too many trumps).

We all know that with KJxx in dummy and one or two small cards in hand, it's a good idea to lead the suit at trick two, so that LHO doesnt know if we're trying to steal a trick or to avoid a guess. This is a similar position, though in a less familar setting. Do you think this is a lot harder for a world-class player? I know I wouldn't necessarily think of it in time, but then I'm not Gunnar Hallberg.

Just to be clear (since there seems to be some confusion about this), I'm not really arguing in favour of taking the ace, I'm just trying to understand what we should be thinking about.

[sathyab]

deleted stuff

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2012-September-26, 05:15, said:

3=4 is a priori more likely than 4=3. But it's not enough for him to be 4=3: he also needs to be missing the king, or to be about to misguess. Ducking works against all 4=3s, so if we were to ignore inferences from the bidding that would probably make the odds fairly even.


We all know that with KJxx in dummy and one or two small cards in hand, it's a good idea to lead the suit at trick two, so that LHO doesnt know if we're trying to steal a trick or to avoid a guess. This is a similar position, though in a less familar setting. Do you think this is a lot harder for a world-class player? I know I wouldn't necessarily think of it in time, but then I'm not Gunnar Hallberg.

Just to be clear (since there seems to be some confusion about this), I'm not really arguing in favour of taking the ace, I'm just trying to understand what we should be thinking about.

Say declarer has J AKxxx AKxx Kxx. I definitely think declarer plays a spade to dummy and a club up far less than 100 % of the time. You are right that they should do that every time, but in real life it is easily possible to be lazy and pull trumps and cash a diamond. Yes, this deceptive line is worth risking a diamond ruff since a trump lead with a diamond void isn't that likely, and a diamond void with RHO would have gotten a lightner double, but again, it is a sharp play to realize this and people are lazy/bad/only see what's in front of them sometimes. With this hand, playing a spade to dummy and a club up only gains when RHO has the CA and not the Q or J, and he chooses to duck, and he would not have ducked had you done it later. It loses on a diamond ruff. So yes, while being the right play, I believe it is 100 % a play that will be missed very often by even very good players, because it is harder to make when you don't know the exact layout.

I have the utmost respect for Gunnar, especially his cardplay, but I still think it is wrong to assume people are making these plays against you all the time. If they are that on the ball on every hand then you'll probably lose anyways (not a comment on you, I would lose every time too, I cannot beat great players who are always doing the right thing).

Now, say declarer has J AKxxx AKx QJxx. He will play a spade to dummy and a club every single time. Why? Becaue this is not a deceptive play, this is as simple as they do not have any other option since playing trumps is obviously out. He does not have to be thinking on any kind of high level like in the last hand. He does not have to be thinking about when this line gains vs when it loses. He simply has to play normal cards with the plan of ruffing some losers, leading up to his honors, etc.

It is always easier for anyone, world class or not, to take lines that require little thought other than the basics of bridge and technical play. Taking lines that on paper are a technical risk for usually no gain at all as a psychological play is always going to be harder. Yes, they might find it, but they will always find the first kind of play.

I know I have said it many times on here but I do not ever play for my opponents to be doing anything special no matter who they are. Even the top players who are much better than me play on a low level in the absolute sense imo and you give away a lot more than you lose thinking otherwise. I mean, look at this hand, I don't know if you popped at the table but if you did you allowed Gunnar to make a slam simply because he was Gunnar when all he was doing was crossing to dummy to lead up to his honors in plan of ruffing *****. He was not failing to pull trumps when he could or anything else like that. I know it's a sample size of one, and perhaps you made the percentage play still, but that matches my experience of doing normal things very often and people just giving me hands because they think I'm doing something fancy or good or tricky. That is a far more common scenario than me doing something good and my opp correctly playing for it.

The way I would look at this hand is that declarer either had a hand where this line of play was forced, or a hand where this line of play was not forced and if declarer took it over pulling trumps they are making a strong subtle play (that they are capable of making). I will always play for option 1 in that case.

[JLOGIC]

And to answer your question Andy, yes I think Kx or Kxx opp stiff is far harder than KJx or KJxx. As you say, one is familiar and one isn't. Bridge at any level is played by pattern recognition, but there is a good reason trying to sneak through the ace when you have KJ is better than the K - it is more likely to work as they cannot have A when you hold the jack. It would not surprise me if Gunnar (or me or anyone) found the line of spade over club up when they held J AKxxx AKxx KJx MUCH more often than when they held J AKxxx AKxx Kxx. This does not make sense and is not rational, but again, much of bridge is just pattern recognition IMO. But again, J AKxxx AKx KJxx or J AKxxx AKx QJxx is much much more likely imo because declarer must play this way.

[sathyab]

JLOGIC, on 2012-September-26, 20:41, said:

Say declarer has J AKxxx AKxx Kxx. I definitely think declarer plays a spade to dummy and a club up far less than 100 % of the time. You are right that they should do that every time, but in real life it is easily possible to be lazy and pull trumps and cash a diamond. Yes, this deceptive line is worth risking a diamond ruff since a trump lead with a diamond void isn't that likely, and a diamond void with RHO would have gotten a lightner double, but again, it is a sharp play to realize this and people are lazy/bad/only see what's in front of them sometimes. With this hand, playing a spade to dummy and a club up only gains when RHO has the CA and not the Q or J, and he chooses to duck, and he would not have ducked had you done it later. It loses on a diamond ruff. So yes, while being the right play, I believe it is 100 % a play that will be missed very often by even very good players, because it is harder to make when you don't know the exact layout.

I have the utmost respect for Gunnar, especially his cardplay, but I still think it is wrong to assume people are making these plays against you all the time. If they are that on the ball on every hand then you'll probably lose anyways (not a comment on you, I would lose every time too, I cannot beat great players who are always doing the right thing).

Now, say declarer has J AKxxx AKx QJxx. He will play a spade to dummy and a club every single time. Why? Becaue this is not a deceptive play, this is as simple as they do not have any other option since playing trumps is obviously out. He does not have to be thinking on any kind of high level like in the last hand. He does not have to be thinking about when this line gains vs when it loses. He simply has to play normal cards with the plan of ruffing some losers, leading up to his honors, etc.

It is always easier for anyone, world class or not, to take lines that require little thought other than the basics of bridge and technical play. Taking lines that on paper are a technical risk for usually no gain at all as a psychological play is always going to be harder. Yes, they might find it, but they will always find the first kind of play.

I know I have said it many times on here but I do not ever play for my opponents to be doing anything special no matter who they are. Even the top players who are much better than me play on a low level in the absolute sense imo and you give away a lot more than you lose thinking otherwise. I mean, look at this hand, I don't know if you popped at the table but if you did you allowed Gunnar to make a slam simply because he was Gunnar when all he was doing was crossing to dummy to lead up to his honors in plan of ruffing *****. He was not failing to pull trumps when he could or anything else like that. I know it's a sample size of one, and perhaps you made the percentage play still, but that matches my experience of doing normal things very often and people just giving me hands because they think I'm doing something fancy or good or tricky. That is a far more common scenario than me doing something good and my opp correctly playing for it.

The way I would look at this hand is that declarer either had a hand where this line of play was forced, or a hand where this line of play was not forced and if declarer took it over pulling trumps they are making a strong subtle play (that they are capable of making). I will always play for option 1 in that case.

Yes, a lot of times we make fundamentally unsound/fancy plays when a declarer with reputation was making a rather routine play. But here there is a strong reason to pop the Ace. In view of partner's trump lead and the combined holding in ♦ between you and dummy, you suspect that one discard from dummy will not be useful even if you pop the Ace, but that if you don't, ducking could cost you. If you have not visualized something really close to the actual 1-5-3-4 distribution by the time declarer plays a ♣, it's hard to have any conviction that ducking is right and so the default play of not losing an Ace takes priority. I would not be surprised if a lot of defenders made the same play even against non-expert declarers.

[MrAce]

sathyab, on 2012-September-27, 10:45, said:

Yes, a lot of times we make fundamentally unsound/fancy plays when a declarer with reputation was making a rather routine play. But here there is a strong reason to pop the Ace. In view of partner's trump lead and the combined holding in ♦ between you and dummy, you suspect that one discard from dummy will not be useful even if you pop the Ace, but that if you don't, ducking could cost you. If you have not visualized something really close to the actual 1-5-3-4 distribution by the time declarer plays a ♣, it's hard to have any conviction that ducking is right and so the default play of not losing an Ace takes priority. I would not be surprised if a lot of defenders made the same play even against non-expert declarers.

I am afraid you missed what he was trying to say, eventhough you upvoted it. Ducking has nothing to do with disabling declarer from making a discard from dummy. 1534 if declarer makes a club trick thats his 12th trick.

It is also not true that ducking will always cost when declarer has the K. It will cost only if declarer has 3 or 2 clubs including the K. I admit when declarer has KJx ♣ AKxx♦ he cant go wrong when we play low.

[sathyab]

MrAce, on 2012-September-27, 16:45, said:

I am afraid you missed what he was trying to say, eventhough you upvoted it. Ducking has nothing to do with disabling declarer from making a discard from dummy. 1534 if declarer makes a club trick thats his 12th trick.

It is also not true that ducking will always cost when declarer has the K. It will cost only if declarer has 3 or 2 clubs including the K. I admit when declarer has KJx ♣ AKxx♦ he cant go wrong when we play low.

Ok, right the mention of a ♦ discard was not relevant. With all the discussion todate, I thought it was understood that for ducking to cost, his ♣ need to be Kx or Kxx, in which case, his only loser will be a ♦.The point I was trying to make was that you had to have figured out that declarer had a hand with no losers outside of ♣ for you to duck a ♣.

[MrAce]

sathyab, on 2012-September-27, 17:46, said:

Ok, right the mention of a ♦ discard was not relevant. With all the discussion todate, I thought it was understood that for ducking to cost, his ♣ need to be Kx or Kxx, in which case, his only loser will be a ♦.The point I was trying to make was that you had to have figured out that declarer had a hand with no losers outside of ♣ for you to duck a ♣.

Yes, and in order to know that we should know if declarer is 3-4 or 4-3 in the minors (some 5-2 or 2-5 too) So the whole discussion was about how we could confidently assume which one declarer has, we decided there is no way to know it confidently. Then I brought up that the only clue that may help us is the behaviour of declarer (playing clubs before clearing trumps) Andy made a good point that this is not a very reliable hint either, which Justin and i agreed but we defended that it is still better to think that declarer would play like this more often due to neccessity rather than strategical reasons.

[sathyab]

MrAce, on 2012-September-27, 17:53, said:

Yes, and in order to know that we should know if declarer is 3-4 or 4-3 in the minors (some 5-2 or 2-5 too) So the whole discussion was about how we could confidently assume which one declarer has, we decided there is no way to know it confidently. Then I brought up that the only clue that may help us is the behaviour of declarer (playing clubs before clearing trumps) Andy made a good point that this is not a very reliable hint either, which Justin and i agreed but we defended that it is still better to think that declarer would play like this more often due to neccessity rather than strategical reasons.

Just one additional point you forgot in your summary of the discussion so far. When Andy pointed out to you very early on in #5, that ducking is fatal when declarer has J AKTxx AKxx Kxx, you said "It didn't even occur to me, until you brought it my attention; but I am not going to play for a specfific ♣ holding even after you mention it because, ducking comes out on top ...".

So you had an advantage right from the start in that a losing choice didn't occur to you, so you didn't have to try as hard to convince yourself that although it was a possible distribution that it was not a probable one most of the time.

[MrAce]

sathyab, on 2012-September-27, 19:29, said:

So you had an advantage right from the start in that a losing choice didn't occur to you, so you didn't have to try as hard to convince yourself that although it was a possible distribution that it was not a probable one most of the time.

This is very unfair comment.

Where is the competition Sathya ? What advantage are you talking about ? Who did i gain this advantage against ? Are you ***** kidding me ? No one replied to a good topic (imo it was a nice hand ) and i was the only one to contribute, which then later Justin joined. So there wasnt even anyone else to compete even if one sees replying to topics as a competition. It was me and Andy who already knows the hand, and Justin.

But fwiw, i meant to say that it did not occur to me that specific holding (Kxx) in club suit. I was aware that ducking would cost when declarer has the K in some hands, here is my proof, my first post ;

MrAce, on 2012-September-24, 05:27, said:

Anyway, assuming they play 6♥ i would auto play small by instinct. Opener liked the splinter, imo he is unlikely to hold the K, i may be wrong though. Only problem we can create for declarer maybe in clubs, i think pd made a good lead, lets cooperate with him.

Also, had i known that replying to topics is some sort of competition for some people, and if i was one of them, i would NOT honestly admit that the hand Andy gave did not occur to me, i would just pretend like i knew it but i dismissed it in my mind because it is less likely than the hands i predicted. But as you can see i was aware of some holdings in club suit with the K (from my first post u can see that) that ducking would be fatal.

I mean seriously, if you want to take this as a competition and want to talk about gaining advantage, i would be more concerned about your post, which came 2 days after the debate was started, reading all the opinions, seeing someone bringing up something important such as behaviour of declarer about not pulling the trumps, and then starting from there to post comments. Don't get me wrong, we all do it except Justin. It in deed is an advantage, i see myself not as sure as before after reading the comments or even if they dont change my mind i see myself more tolerated to the other sides decision compared to the comments i make early in the thread. So don't take this as an accusation or looking down on your comments, since i don't even see it as some sort of competition.

At least tell me, how many master points or dollars i have won with the advantage that i took, and against whom ?

We have seen self assigned forum cops in the past, but this is the first time i see a self assigned forum referee who creates a competition out of nowhere in his head and then points out the advantages that a forum poster gained !

[MrAce]

@ Sathya : Nevermind bro, i appologize, it is 4 am in the morning and just came from work and i know i overreacted to what you wrote. Rough day. I know this is not even a good excuse but it is what it is bro. Peace, i am out of this topic...

[sathyab]

MrAce, on 2012-September-28, 02:58, said:

This is very unfair comment.

Where is the competition Sathya ? What advantage are you talking about ? Who did i gain this advantage against ? Are you ***** kidding me ? No one replied to a good topic (imo it was a nice hand ) and i was the only one to contribute, which then later Justin joined. So there wasnt even anyone else to compete even if one sees replying to topics as a competition. It was me and Andy who already knows the hand, and Justin.

But fwiw, i meant to say that it did not occur to me that specific holding (Kxx) in club suit. I was aware that ducking would cost when declarer has the K in some hands, here is my proof, my first post ;



Also, had i known that replying to topics is some sort of competition for some people, and if i was one of them, i would NOT honestly admit that the hand Andy gave did not occur to me, i would just pretend like i knew it but i dismissed it in my mind because it is less likely than the hands i predicted. But as you can see i was aware of some holdings in club suit with the K (from my first post u can see that) that ducking would be fatal.

I mean seriously, if you want to take this as a competition and want to talk about gaining advantage, i would be more concerned about your post, which came 2 days after the debate was started, reading all the opinions, seeing someone bringing up something important such as behaviour of declarer about not pulling the trumps, and then starting from there to post comments. Don't get me wrong, we all do it except Justin. It in deed is an advantage, i see myself not as sure as before after reading the comments or even if they dont change my mind i see myself more tolerated to the other sides decision compared to the comments i make early in the thread. So don't take this as an accusation or looking down on your comments, since i don't even see it as some sort of competition.

At least tell me, how many master points or dollars i have won with the advantage that i took, and against whom ?

We have seen self assigned forum cops in the past, but this is the first time i see a self assigned forum referee who creates a competition out of nowhere in his head and then points out the advantages that a forum poster gained !

When I said "advantage", I meant advantage in arguing your position. It's just a form of expression.

As to your charge about my posting a comment two days after the debate started, yes I did post. Because I found the discussion very interesting, but I confined myself to just one observation, that popping the Ace was more a function of the difficulty involved in visualizing a distribution close to the one that declarer had, rather than being induced by the notion that an expert player was making a subtle/deceptive play.