[PhilKing]

helene_t, on 2014-September-10, 16:49, said:

But then the queen of spades is not a menace anymore as you have no entries to it

♦A.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-September-10, 18:21, said:

If you duck the diamond, the defenders play a second diamond and may reach this ending, with the lead in South:

Most people given the hand instinctively switched to a spade. Defence to complicated squeezes is not easy.

[rhm]

lamford, on 2014-September-10, 18:21, said:

I agree, and I think Helene is wrong. The only downside of ducking the diamond is that they may ruff the second round. However, it is by no means cold if you survive the first hurdle, and I still maintain the correct line is to win the first diamond, draw trumps and take the spade finesse. If you duck the diamond, the defenders play a second diamond and may reach this ending, with the lead in South:

---

Now the only winning line is to cash the ace of spades, but that will be wrong on other layouts.

And if West is ♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦KQJxxx ♣x, then he has already "fluffed his lines" by not finding the initial small heart lead, leaving declarer with no resource

If I understand this correctly if diamonds are 6-2 and you duck diamonds and they are continued the hand is essentially a compound squeeze.
The basic threat is the ♦6 controlled only by West.
On the run of the trumps West has a choice, which major to give up.
If hearts, cash hearts next and a double squeeze develops with spades the common threat.
If spades, cash spade ace and a double squeeze develops with hearts the common threat

The only thing declarer has to get right is, which major suit West gave up on the run of the clubs.
You are arguing take the finesse because you might go wrong.
I believe a competent declarer has much better odds getting right what West relinquished, in particular if he also takes East discards into account.
In the 4 card ending the minor suit distribution will be known and you will know who discarded which major suit cards.
If you believe you are playing against defenders, who know how to defend compound squeezes:
Simply work under the assumption that opponents were dealt the most likely a priori distribution still possible given the facts you know.
But few defenders are good at compound squeeze, because recognition in time is tough and usually both defenders must cooperate and know what is going on.

My only concern is that the risk of a diamond ruff is just too high.
I think phantomsac's line has better overall odds

Rainer Herrmann

[RMB1]

helene_t, on 2014-September-10, 16:49, said:

But then the queen of spades is not a menace anymore as you have no entries to it

Isn't ♦A still in dummy as entry after clubs are cashed. [As PhilKing said]

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2014-September-11, 04:41

[lamford]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-09, 13:10, said:

This way we make when the SK is on and when the squeeze works as long as we get the diamond count right.

I don't see any way that you can get the diamond count right. The opponents are not on your side. West led a top diamond, and even if his partner gave true count, he could have played the same card with a singleton. East will always bare the king of spades and keep his second diamond. This is the Commonwealth Championship, not the National Newcomers' Pairs.

[PhantomSac]

lamford, on 2014-September-11, 06:13, said:

I don't see any way that you can get the diamond count right. The opponents are not on your side. West led a top diamond, and even if his partner gave true count, he could have played the same card with a singleton. East will always bare the king of spades and keep his second diamond. This is the Commonwealth Championship, not the National Newcomers' Pairs.

lol

[PhantomSac]

I know I should know better than to feed the trolls at this point but I will attempt to make a constructive post since it is an interesting hand.

Lamford: For starters, you won't just need RHO to keep his diamond, you will need LHO to come down to a stiff diamond whenever he holds 6 diamonds. When your endgame is:

AQ
x
xx
--

x
AK9
T

If there are THREE diamonds outstanding you will pretty much know that LHO has 2 and RHO has 1. Ah yes, it's the COMMONWEALTH GAMES so I'm sure LHO might come down to 3 diamonds and pitch hearts/spades early just to mess with us. Or not. If there are 2 diamonds outstanding, I would bet they are not 1-1. Yes, it's the highly prestigious COMMONWEALTH GAMES so I'm sure all players will easily unguard diamonds looking at 2 little in dummy, without even knowing if we are the one with the third diamond yet or not (no doubt their partner pitched count in every suit so the diamond count will be known to LHO, because in the COMMONWEALTH GAMES everyone pitches honest count despite being completely double dummy, so that LHO can just boldly unguard dummy's suit, the only suit he has guarded).

In real life if you think LHO might be down to 1 diamond or 3 diamonds in this position 100 % of the time because it is the COMMONWEALTH GAMES, well that's absolutely retarded, I'll say 99 % + they won't.

On top of that, RHO might erroneously pitch a diamond on the run of 7 clubs some percentage of the time. Yes, that would be a poor play, but sometimes when getting squeezed in the majors you pitch your small diamond early on before knowing exactly what is happening.

Maybe you should try thinking about what others post rather than dogmatically assuming that in the COMMONWEALTH GAMES everyone plays 100 % percent perfectly. Of course RHO if it comes down to it will stiff their spade but that does not matter unless their partner has also stiffed their diamond while looking at 2 diamonds in dummy, and that is an incredibly deep and hard play. To think you can never read the end position here shows more about your bridge ability and less about the strength of the COMMONWEALTH GAMES. I bet it would make you a better bridge player, but obviously your goal of your troll posts is to simply prove your superiority rather than to learn anything about bridge.

I was going to write a much longer post about some of the other absurd things you have said but it doesn't really matter. If you think that LHO (not RHO) is so good that you cannot ever read the diamond count then gl to you.

[nige1]

Phantomsac "Sour grapes" because America is no longer a British colony

[lamford]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-11, 13:03, said:

I was going to write a much longer post about some of the other absurd things you have said but it doesn't really matter.

I didn't notice any attack on you in any of my posts, and I will not rise to the bait, nor will I include the name of the event in capital letters on six different occasions in a puerile manner. This is the expert forum, not the novice and beginner forum, and therefore we should assume perfect defence in any discussion of the merits of any line. I did go to the trouble of dealing 24 boards and looking at the various lines with perfect defence, and thought that drawing trumps and finessing the spade was correct; yes I did consider what everyone else said, and I rejected the "psycho" line of ducking the first diamond, and rejected the line of playing the "squeeze/endplay" and even adjusted those lines for perfect defence of baring the king of spades. I was already confident that those two lines were quite a bit inferior based on a painstaking analysis of a mere 24 boards. I did go to the trouble of estimating the chance of success of several lines, and revised my original estimate of mikeh's line upwards. The problem with all fancy lines is that they need you to guess the ending, and I disagree with PhilKing that continuing diamonds, if declarer ducks, is not blindingly obvious. I still maintain that the correct line is to draw trumps and finesse the spade. Your line would also have succeeded on the actual layout. The hand is an open book after the diamond has been won, as declarer clearly has one spade, seven clubs, two hearts and one diamond, and is looking for a twelfth trick. Your suggestion that they might not keep the right number of diamonds to give you a guess is rejected, at least in the expert forum. You would, no doubt, be correct in the other forums, and I might well play differently in the real world. That is not the discussion in this thread.

PhilKing had the view that the defence will switch to a spade automatically if you duck the diamond. I disagree; I think they will continue diamonds. One aspect of my posts which was indeed a jest was that West would find the (only) defence of an initial low heart lead from Jxx Jxx KQJxxx x and that was a completely unjustified dig at PhilKing (to whom I apologise) who carelessly wrote some rubbish on BBO about a declarer "fluffing his lines". I don't genuinely think anyone would ever find this defence, which fatally attacks declarer's communications for the compound squeeze. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no desire to start a flame war with you, as I generally find your posts interesting, and certainly not retarded.

And, yet again, the point of no return has been reached on a thread, where I am not prepared to post any more for reasons of time. If that is a lame reply, so be it, but I will not post on this thread again. And looking at the 24 hands again, the correct strategy for East is to keep a second diamond whenever he has two diamonds and the king of spades. He then gets his full equity, as phantomsac will try to endplay him and fail. His partner will have no problem in coming down to one diamond as well, as other lines will give in.

[PhilKing]

So it would appear that, if one assumes that lefty started with ♦KQJxxx, the contract is a spread by winning the first trick, since one can still exit a diamond in a perfectly defended end-game.

The only danger is that righty started with ♦Jx. I spoke to East (the author of a book on preemepts), and he stated that the chances of him not bidding 4♦ at the vulnerabilty with seven was somewhat unlikely.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2014-September-12, 02:28, said:

I spoke to East (the author of a book on preemepts), and he stated that the chances of him not bidding 4♦ at the vulnerabilty with seven was somewhat unlikely.

I am not sure, but maybe because I will never write a book about this subject.
Obviously the colors are optimal for maximum aggression.
Against that opponents are already forced to game and each has named presumably their longest suit already.
At this point a high-level preempt has much less to gain and risks much more.
Opponents are likely to get the decision right far more often when to defend and how and when not.
A high preempt may even help them to value their hands better.
I get more conservative under those conditions.
It is not like a preempt in first seat or directly over a strong artificial opening and higher is not always better.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

As a final footnote, I have established, but not beyond reasonable doubt which PhilKing can perhaps do, that declarer exited with a heart in this ending:

---

Given that West had shown out of hearts, doubtless rhm would have commented, "An embarrassing play at this level. After that declarer was indeed dead." I am even more convinced that a declarer who cannot reliably add up to thirteen should have just taken the spade finesse.

"To think you can never read the end position here shows more about your bridge ability and less about the strength of the COMMONWEALTH GAMES."- Phantomsac

[PhantomSac]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 08:24, said:

As a final footnote, I have established, but not beyond reasonable doubt which PhilKing can perhaps do, that declarer exited with a heart in this ending:

---

Given that West had shown out of hearts, doubtless rhm would have commented, "An embarrassing play at this level. After that declarer was indeed dead." I am even more convinced that a declarer who cannot reliably add up to thirteen should have just taken the spade finesse.

"To think you can never read the end position here shows more about your bridge ability and less about the strength of the COMMONWEALTH GAMES."- Phantomsac

Are you ***** dense? This end position is never possible unless declarer pitched a diamond too early, DO YOU SEE WHY?

LOL AT SAYING THIS:

Quote

"To think you can never read the end position here shows more about your bridge ability and less about the strength of the COMMONWEALTH GAMES."- Phantomsac

AS IF IT CONDRADICTS ME WHEN IT IN FACT PROVES MY EXACT QUOTE LOLOLOLOL

[lamford]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-12, 12:06, said:

Are you ***** dense? This end position is never possible unless declarer pitched a diamond too early, DO YOU SEE WHY?

LOL AT SAYING THIS:

AS IF IT CONDRADICTS ME WHEN IT IN FACT PROVES MY EXACT QUOTE LOLOLOLOL

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments before, that I would not continue to analyse this hand, save to say that the end position above was actually reached at the table, and I agree the declarer misplayed it to here, and continued to misplay it after here. It might be better for you to read what I wrote rather than continue to make a fool of yourself. And the word is "contradicts" rather than "condradicts".

{comments}

---

And that must be my last word. Except to ask the moderators if they know how to get the diagram above larger!

[PhantomSac]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 08:24, said:

As a final footnote, I have established, but not beyond reasonable doubt which PhilKing can perhaps do, that declarer exited with a heart in this ending:

---

Given that West had shown out of hearts, doubtless rhm would have commented, "An embarrassing play at this level. After that declarer was indeed dead." I am even more convinced that a declarer who cannot reliably add up to thirteen should have just taken the spade finesse.

"To think you can never read the end position here shows more about your bridge ability and less about the strength of the COMMONWEALTH GAMES."- Phantomsac

I cannot stop laughing. It would be funny if lamford made up this end position as a trolling attempt, because it is one of the most beautiful posts of all time. It has everything.

--Apparently declarer exited a HEART after LHO had shown out of hearts [given that west had shown out of hearts]???? Yes, that is indeed embarassing since the guy is known to have 2 heart cashers?
--Apparently RHO actually did pitch their diamond (based on PhilKings comments here diamonds were 6-2?)
--Apparently declarer pitched their diamond too early, NOT reaching the correct position that I was talking about, even when RHO had pitched a diamond lol?
--Lamford not understanding that this position would be impossible with the line I was discussing? If we go back a trick when LHO pitched on the HK dummy would have AQ of spades and 2 diamonds. LHO would have Kx of spades and 2 diamonds. If LHO pitched a diamond we would pitch a spade and claim of course, so they would have to pitch their spade.

Based on this lamford thinks that the opponents will never mispitch or err ever and in the EXPERT FORUM we are supposed to assume completely perfect play at all times.

And all of this after the whole "I'm not going to rise to the bait, this is my last post in this thread" followed by his sick burn of quoting my apparently correct quote given that lamford STILL does not understand anything about this hand, despite it being posted multiple times, especially the discarding that LHO would have to do to confuse the issue ever (he is stuck on well OBV RHO will keep his diamond...though he seems not to have, that wasn't even the point lol).

But yeah, sick burn that declarer did not keep his diamonds and then misguessed the endposition and apparently attempted to endplay a guy who was known to have 2 winners left. Hahaha, what a timeless post, for one so short especially. Either the greatest troll post or the most clueless post of all time. Beautiful.

[PhantomSac]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 12:33, said:

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments before, that I would not continue to analyse this hand, save to say that the end position above was actually reached at the table, and I agree the declarer misplayed it to here, and continued to misplay it after here. It might be better for you to read what I wrote rather than continue to make a fool of yourself. And the word is "contradicts" rather than "condradicts". And that must be my last word.

Haha, you are really too amazing to be real.

You say this:

Quote

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments before, that I would not continue to analyse this hand, save to say that the end position above was actually reached at the table, and I agree the declarer misplayed it to here, and continued to misplay it after here. It might be better for you to read what I wrote rather than continue to make a fool of yourself.

You realize we can all read what you wrote, and we all know that's a lie?

You actually said:

Quote

And, yet again, the point of no return has been reached on a thread, where I am not prepared to post any more for reasons of time. If that is a lame reply, so be it, but I will not post on this thread again.

You should not just outright lie when your words are written here lol. You said you weren't going to post in this thread any more, and then you posted again not long after. And then when I reply to your post you say I look foolish? LOL. Apparently in lamfordland, the guy who says he's not going to post anymore in a thread and acts like he's taking the high ground, and then posts again with a dig at someone a few hours later, then gets to say that the person who replies to that is the one who looks foolish. He also gets to lie and say he said he wasn't going to post again except to give the final result of the hand. Sorry but you are the one making a complete fool out of yourself here.

And good job correcting my typo. That's a sick burn, you got me. I was laughing too hard at your post I guess, it was really awesome. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

[mikeh]

Wow. I have been avoiding this thread out of embarrassment about my initial 'solution', written (I claim) in a hurry. Clearly preserving diamonds in dummy on the run of the trump was the obvious thing to do, to complicate life for the opps and to (significantly) increase the squeeze odds. I like to think that I would automatically have done so, despite my post suggesting otherwise. Anyway, the upshot was that I missed all the subsequent byplay, which takes me back in time to when this sort of back and forth was almost routine (with me, all too often, being one of the back and forthers )

On reflection, I don't miss those old days much. However, calling someone out for a typo is a bit much

[lamford]

mikeh, on 2014-September-12, 12:57, said:

However, calling someone out for a typo is a bit much

I agree; I apologise for that. And your original post was certainly not a embarrassing as declarer's play on the hand.

[MrAce]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 13:07, said:

I agree; I apologise for that. And your original post was certainly not a embarrassing as declarer's play on the hand.

Indeed spell checking is a sign of losing the debate. But if you are going to do it anyway, at least you could try to avoid the typo yourself, in your very last of the promised last posts in this topic

[lamford]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-12, 12:44, said:

You said you weren't going to post in this thread any more, and then you posted again not long after.

I lied. I do it all the time when I give false count, lead fifth best instead of promised fourth. Normally, anyway, undertaking not to post again and then doing so is regarded as "breach of promise" rather than lying. Politicians do that all the time. Am I bovvered?