[pescetom]

MP

---

West is a promising beginner with no shortage of optimism, NS are wily old wolves.
Your hand looked a bit too good for 1NT but you bid that anyway to give him practice, now you begin to regret it.
South leads ♦K and North contributes the 4 (negative attitude if anything).

What is your plan and how do you rate your chances?

[mikeh]

I like my chances but the situation is very complex. I started to outline my approach, but there are so many forks or branches, depending on the carding, that it would take a long post…long even by my standards, to write.

In essence, I’m winning the ace and returning the suit. That gets the first fork…what do the opps do? If south ducks, I’m playing the Jack. If the 10 appears…drive out the diamond queen. If I think that north has short diamonds (I’ll know about a stiff and the only ambiguity is 10xx since with xxx, south can’t duck), I’ll abandon diamonds and hook the heart.

F south pops and I’m still in doubt about the 10, then what I do depends on what south plays but on a diamond, I’d play the Jack and hope for the heart/diamond squeeze (or the equivalent heart hook) if diamonds were 4=2. On a heart shift, I’d fly the ace and try to guess the endgame. Note that south is toast if he started with K of hearts and KQ10x in diamonds. I leave the details to the reader

There are lots of ways this could go very wrong. If South has the heart K and only KQ tight in diamonds, for example, I’m going down when I could have made.

[pescetom]

Thanks mikeh, but you are to I/A threads what DDT was to insects: a spoiler would have been appreciated

While the world catches up, what is your gut feeling about the chances of playing to the Jack (and all the rest) versus hook the hearts?

[mikeh]

Thanks, I think😀

I did start out using a spoiler but screwed up the typing in the small box not once but twice….obviously I need to work on that, so I apologize.

As for diamond to the jack, while it’s hardly 100%, I think I prefer that to a heart hook. If the heart hook loses, we’re flat out down at trick three unless north has a stiff diamond. And if the heart hook loses and north can’t play a diamond, the odds are high that he has 4+ hearts, waving us a trick short anyway. Plus, the odds are good, though not 100%, tyat if the heart hook would win, we don’t need it. I’m not interested in playing for an overtrick!

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-December-08, 14:10, said:

Thanks, I think��

I did start out using a spoiler but screwed up the typing in the small box not once but twice….obviously I need to work on that, so I apologize.

As for diamond to the jack, while it’s hardly 100%, I think I prefer that to a heart hook. If the heart hook loses, we’re flat out down at trick three unless north has a stiff diamond. And if the heart hook loses and north can’t play a diamond, the odds are high that he has 4+ hearts, waving us a trick short anyway. Plus, the odds are good, though not 100%, tyat if the heart hook would win, we don’t need it. I’m not interested in playing for an overtrick!

An overtrick is certainly no issue, you are almost certainly the only one in slam (deservedly or not) even if that cost you the aggressive diamonds lead rather than a heart.

I was interested in your vision of the actual numbers: at the table, my gut feeling was a tad less than even for for the hearts hook versus a tad more for diamonds J.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2023-December-08, 15:35, said:

An overtrick is certainly no issue, you are almost certainly the only one in slam (deservedly or not) even if that cost you the aggressive diamonds lead rather than a heart.

I was interested in your vision of the actual numbers: at the table, my gut feeling was a tad less than even for for the hearts hook versus a tad more for diamonds J.

I think the key is that if diamonds behave, we don’t need the heart hook….even more key is that on many layouts, consistent with the diamond lead, if the heart hook is on,we don’t need to take it…certainly we don’t need to take it until later….if South puts us to it at trick 3….again, we often don’t need it so we shouldn’t take it. It’s pretty close to what is sometimes called a practice finesse….where a declarer, not having a good plan in mind, takes a needless finesse…if it wins, break even and if it loses, get a bad result.

It’s not a perfect practice finesse situation. There are some lies where we’re going to have close to or upon fact absolutely a pure guess at the end…south with KQx and north 10xx in diamonds. Btw, south’s diamond lead, on the auction, to me suggests that he has the heart king. He may be hoping that declarer has the heart ace. If I held say xxx Kxx KQx xxxx I’d lead a diamond honour because I know hearts are producing 4 tricks on almost any layout consistent with the auction, and I’d be worried that declarer has enough winners in the blacks (on the auction, north is known to have close to and may have exactly zero hcp). In that case I have to get my diamond set up. Maybe declarer has tge heart ace or the suit is AQ10xx in dummy and xx in declarer’s hand…again, I need to get my diamond established.

This is only a slight inference because south could equally well hope his partner can stop hearts and, again, we want to get our diamond set up.

In short, I think the heart suit is very close to a toss-up, but with, say, KQ10x in diamonds and xx in hearts. South might choose a passive lead…we’re known to have minimal values for slam and the diamond bid on my left should worry me.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-December-08, 16:26, said:

I think the key is that if diamonds behave, we don’t need the heart hook….even more key is that on many layouts, consistent with the diamond lead, if the heart hook is on,we don’t need to take it…certainly we don’t need to take it until later….if South puts us to it at trick 3….again, we often don’t need it so we shouldn’t take it. It’s pretty close to what is sometimes called a practice finesse….where a declarer, not having a good plan in mind, takes a needless finesse…if it wins, break even and if it loses, get a bad result.

It’s not a perfect practice finesse situation. There are some lies where we’re going to have close to or upon fact absolutely a pure guess at the end…south with KQx and north 10xx in diamonds. Btw, south’s diamond lead, on the auction, to me suggests that he has the heart king. He may be hoping that declarer has the heart ace. If I held say xxx Kxx KQx xxxx I’d lead a diamond honour because I know hearts are producing 4 tricks on almost any layout consistent with the auction, and I’d be worried that declarer has enough winners in the blacks (on the auction, north is known to have close to and may have exactly zero hcp). In that case I have to get my diamond set up. Maybe declarer has tge heart ace or the suit is AQ10xx in dummy and xx in declarer’s hand…again, I need to get my diamond established.

This is only a slight inference because south could equally well hope his partner can stop hearts and, again, we want to get our diamond set up.

Right. To complicate things, at least by I/A standard, South likes to play head games and is quite capable of putting me to it with either with a heart from ♥Kx(x) or small from ♦Tx. At the table, I decided I was always going to put up ♦J over small and never going to take the hearts finesse unless the diamonds situation was clearly hopeless. I probably should have gone deeper into all the possibilities... I know you dislike online/electronic play, but this is one of those situations that I would analyse better and faster alone behind a PC screen without the emotional stress of sitting at a table with all three opponents

mikeh, on 2023-December-08, 16:26, said:

There are some lies where we’re going to have close to or upon fact absolutely a pure guess at the end…south with KQx and north 10xx in diamonds.

Isn't that a situation where putting up the J over small always works? I reasoned (maybe wrongly) that it could never cost if North started off with three diamonds.

[pescetom]

Here is the full layout.

MP

---

Only 6NTE received the ♦K lead, contract making in anticlimax when the Q felled the T on trick 2.
Those in 3NTE received a ♥8 lead, two of them only +2.
Those in 3NTW received a small club, all +3.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2023-December-09, 11:31, said:

Right. To complicate things, at least by I/A standard, South likes to play head games and is quite capable of putting me to it with either with a heart from ♥Kx(x) or small from ♦Tx. At the table, I decided I was always going to put up ♦J over small and never going to take the hearts finesse unless the diamonds situation was clearly hopeless. I probably should have gone deeper into all the possibilities... I know you dislike online/electronic play, but this is one of those situations that I would analyse better and faster alone behind a PC screen without the emotional stress of sitting at a table with all three opponents



Isn't that a situation where putting up the J over small always works? I reasoned (maybe wrongly) that it could never cost if North started off with three diamonds.

I’ve played and will play a fair amount online. For example, we played the GNT a couple of years back and reached the semi-finals. Plus in Feb we play the round robin stage of the CNTC online and for a couple of years the entire CNTC event was online.

But I find that I am far more focused in face to face bridge. I may be kidding myself but I think I play better ‘at the table’.

My main partner feels the same way.

It may be my background as a trial and appellate counsel, but a good but not overwhelming level of stress makes me play better, and the online scenario simply isn’t stressful enough, lol.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-December-09, 11:57, said:

It may be my background as a trial and appellate counsel, but a good but not overwhelming level of stress makes me play better, and the online scenario simply isn’t stressful enough, lol.

That makes sense - f2f, not being easily intimidated is clearly an advantage and probably essential beyond a certain level.
Of course there is a thin line between merely having a thick skin and more or less intentionally intimidating the opponent, and that often gets crossed too.
I like the idea of a game where the stress comes only from interpreting the calls and plays, but I concede it is not the current dominant vision of bridge nor the only possible future one.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2023-December-09, 14:06, said:

That makes sense - f2f, not being easily intimidated is clearly an advantage and probably essential beyond a certain level.
Of course there is a thin line between merely having a thick skin and more or less intentionally intimidating the opponent, and that often gets crossed too.
I like the idea of a game where the stress comes only from interpreting the calls and plays, but I concede it is not the current dominant vision of bridge nor the only possible future one.

I think we may be on different wavelengths. I’m not talking of intimidation. I do know that my partnerships tend to intimidate a lot of average or weaker players at the club or sectional events, but we don’t do so intentionally nor are we rude (I used to have a problem in that regard but I’m told that my reputation has vastly improved in recent years). But club or sectional bridge isn’t at all stressful for me, so that’s not what I’m discussing.

Moreover, thanks to having had my head handed to me many times, while occasionally prevailing, when playing WC opps, I relish the chance. There is stress but it’s entirely self-imposed. The great majority of top players are very well behaved. Last year, we lost in the Soloway round of 32 to Nickell, by 9 imps. We played 45 boards against Weinstein-Levin. They were friendly. They both complimented us on a couple of well played hands. I’ve had similar (in terms of how the opps behaved) experiences on many occasions.

Imo, behaving so as to intimidate should have no place in the game, and my experience is that it no longer does. Which, btw,wasn’t my view 40 years ago when assholes like The Hog were rude and overbearing.

[Lovera]

mikeh, on 2023-December-08, 14:10, said:

Thanks, I think��

I did start out using a spoiler but screwed up the typing in the small box not once but twice….obviously I need to work on that, so I apologize.

As for diamond to the jack, while it's hardly 100%, I think I prefer that to a heart hook. If the heart hook loses, we're flat out down at trick three unless north has a stiff diamond. And if the heart hook loses and north can't play a diamond, the odds are high that he has 4+ hearts, waving us a trick short anyway. Plus, the odds are good, though not 100%, tyat if the heart hook would win, we don't need it. I'm not interested in playing for an overtrick!

Perhaps this one can help you:https://www.bridgeba...post__p__939458
After you can see "Spoiler" and how can make about it.

[pescetom]

Lovera, on 2023-December-10, 06:04, said:

Perhaps this one can help you:https://www.bridgeba...post__p__939458
After you can see "Spoiler" and how can make about it.

Spoiler

I just precede the text with the tag spoiler in square brackets and finish with slash spoiler in square brackets: no need to type in a small window.
You can see how it works if you click reply to this post.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-December-09, 16:43, said:

I think we may be on different wavelengths. I’m not talking of intimidation. I do know that my partnerships tend to intimidate a lot of average or weaker players at the club or sectional events, but we don’t do so intentionally nor are we rude (I used to have a problem in that regard but I’m told that my reputation has vastly improved in recent years). But club or sectional bridge isn’t at all stressful for me, so that’s not what I’m discussing.

Moreover, thanks to having had my head handed to me many times, while occasionally prevailing, when playing WC opps, I relish the chance. There is stress but it’s entirely self-imposed. The great majority of top players are very well behaved. Last year, we lost in the Soloway round of 32 to Nickell, by 9 imps. We played 45 boards against Weinstein-Levin. They were friendly. They both complimented us on a couple of well played hands. I’ve had similar (in terms of how the opps behaved) experiences on many occasions.

Imo, behaving so as to intimidate should have no place in the game, and my experience is that it no longer does. Which, btw,wasn’t my view 40 years ago when assholes like The Hog were rude and overbearing.

Thanks. I wasn't suggesting you were talking about intimidation or that I associated it with you for any reason... I was just thinking out loud about how either side may be at fault when a player suffers the psychological confrontation with an opponent.

I don't have experience playing bridge at top level but I have officiated at a Bermuda Bowl and can confirm that the majority of top players are exemplary in behaviour. Which is no surprise, that's the general rule at the top in other sports too. It's the wannabes that are more likely to create problems.