[Apollo81]

I'd guess LHO started with x Axxx Q9xxx Kxxx and RHO started with -- Kxxxx xx AQJxxx, this explains LHO's opening lead (would probably lead hearts if had nothing there or hK, would probably make an active lead with no diamond card) and RHO's thinking (i want to bid but my hearts suck, if I bid do I bid clubs or hearts?)

[655321]

LHO has his values, RHO does not.
The hands could be:
T
Axxx
Qxxx
Kxxx
opposite
-
Kxxxx
xxx
AQJxx

Or they could be
T
Axxx
xxxx
AJxx
opposite
-
Kxxxx
Qxx
KQxxx

If LHO had a 5 card suit, he may have discarded one before his second heart discard, so I am playing him for 1444. Both because I think LHO has 4 diamonds, and because he may have pitched a diamond from 4 small, I am hooking him for the ♦Q (having won the 4th spade in hand).

I don't feel confident about my play.

[655321]

Actually, since I am not confident about where the ♦Q is, perhaps playing diamonds from the top and ruffing the 3rd round is better.
So, assuming we are vulnerable, a 50% finesse gives us expected value of
(790 - 500)/2 = 145.
Ruffing out the diamonds gives us
(790*3 - 200*4)/7 = 224.
Plus some (small) chance of RHO covering the ♦Q.
So, depending on how confident we are on finding the ♦Q (and I am not confident), perhaps ruffing out the diamonds is the better line.

[mikeh]

I wish I knew the vulnerability.

Because, in my view, this hand should not be merely about maximizing the chances of making 4♠ x'd.

1stly, our teammates are probably bidding 5♥ and are probably making it. We need to lead a diamond, find the suit 4=3, and not block it: would all partners play the A with Qxxx in dummy? Would we always know to overtake the J (when declarer ducks) on the second round when dummy is xxx? And when declarer covers, would we known that we have to give partner a ruff rather than cash a spade?

2ndly, if our teammates defend 4 or 5♠s, they are taking the 1st 4 tricks.

So, it seems to me that risking -2 risks creating a losing scenario, especially if we are red v white.

If we are are equal or (even better) favourable, there is more reason to strain to make the contract.

If red v white, I simply play 3 rounds of diamonds and hope the Q appears.

Otherwise, I play LHO for length in diamonds.. I think I am insulting RHO but I am playing him for 0=6=2=5 or 0=5=3=5... say void AJxxxx xx KQxxx, leaving LHO with 10 Kxxx Qxxxx AJx

[finally17]

ok, replacing with original, just a comment not on hand:

Quote

So, assuming we are vulnerable, a 50% finesse gives us expected value of
(790 - 500)/2 = 145.
Ruffing out the diamonds gives us
(790*3 - 200*4)/7 = 224.

Because the total points -> IMPS conversion is not a linear scale, this isn't really the right way to go about calculating EV.

For instance, 145 points is 4 IMPS. But 790 being 13 and 500 being 11, your IMP result for this first calcution is really just 1, not 4. This of course does not take into account your teammates result.

[Apollo81]

Apollo81, on Feb 20 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

I'd guess LHO started with x Axxx Q9xxx Kxxx and RHO started with -- Kxxxx xx AQJxxx, this explains LHO's opening lead (would probably lead hearts if had nothing there or hK, would probably make an active lead with no diamond card) and RHO's thinking (i want to bid but my hearts suck, if I bid do I bid clubs or hearts?)

and I would play to make based on this

[655321]

Apollo81, on Feb 20 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 20 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

I'd guess LHO started with x Axxx Q9xxx Kxxx and RHO started with -- Kxxxx xx AQJxxx, this explains LHO's opening lead (would probably lead hearts if had nothing there or hK, would probably make an active lead with no diamond card) and RHO's thinking (i want to bid but my hearts suck, if I bid do I bid clubs or hearts?)

and I would play to make based on this

If you are confident ♦Q is on your left, fair enough. If I had to bet, I would also guess West has the queen.

Your LHO example, though, has 14 cards. If you remove a club, to give everyone 13 cards, then LHO has pitched a club from Kxx to keep Qxxxx diamonds. This is not physically impossible, but it is generally (read 'always' ) better to take people's discards at face value - ie assume LHO does not have 5 diamonds.

But you could reasonably decide LHO has Qxxx diamond in a 1444 hand, and RHO is 0535, and finesse, if you are still that sure about the ♦Q.

[gnasher]

This may not apply to these particular opponents, but:

mikeh, on Feb 21 2008, 01:19 AM, said:

1stly, our teammates are probably bidding 5♥ and are probably making it. We need to lead a diamond, find the suit 4=3

If diamonds are 5-2 we can promote a trump.

Quote

, and not block it: would all partners play the A with Qxxx in dummy?

They should, because we shouldn't lead low from xxx(x) against a five-level contract. In fact, it's most unlikely that we'd be leading such a suit at all.

Quote

Would we always know to overtake the J (when declarer ducks) on the second round when dummy is xxx? And when declarer covers, would we known that we have to give partner a ruff rather than cash a spade?

Yes, we would. With AJx, partner should lead back a low diamond, to give declarer a guess when he has Q10x. It would be harder if we didn't have the ten.

[gnasher]

The most likely result at the other table is 5Sx-2, for +500. Teammates will certainly bid to 5H, and it will be hard for North to decide to defend. If that's the case:
- If we go two down for -500, we tie.
- If we go one down for -200, we gain 7.
- If we make for +790, we gain 14.
- If we make an overtrick (finding LHO with Qxx) for +990, we gain 15.

Given the uncertainty about the opponents' shapes, and the possibility of DQ coming down in three, I think you should play safe and just try to ruff it out.

At the table, though, my analysis would probably have gone no deeper than "He's led a trump: he must have DQ; even bad teams have to be beaten: finesse."

[Rebound]

Perhaps this is utter bullocks, but I've noticed how incredibly often it occurs that when, say as in this case where we're 2-2 in both ♥ and ♣, the oppents have mirrored distribution in those suits, i.e. 4♣ and 5♥ for RHO and 5♣ and 4♥ for LHO. On the other hand, trying to decide who has what high cards is making my brain hurt. I play for the ♦ Q to drop.

[Fluffy]

LHO has ♥A otherwise he would had led a heart.

He doesn't ahve a club sequence, otherwise he would had led a club.

So unless LHO has exactly ♥A +♣AQ, he has ♦Q.

RHO is 0535 surelly, and probably ♠-♥Kxxxx♦xxx♣AQxxx

[MFA]

I think west is most likely 1444.
I will play for the drop. Perhaps it's slightly better to finesse against west if I go all out to make it, but there could be many imps difference between down 1 and down 2, as gnasher points out.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Feb 21 2008, 03:50 AM, said:

Quote

Would we always know to overtake the J (when declarer ducks) on the second round when dummy is xxx? And when declarer covers, would we known that we have to give partner a ruff rather than cash a spade?

Yes, we would. With AJx, partner should lead back a low diamond, to give declarer a guess when he has Q10x. It would be harder if we didn't have the ten.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.. the part about 'giving declarer a guess'. Remember, in this scenario, the opps are at the 5-level, and (1) we won the A, (2) partner led the suit on opening lead, (3) we absolutely DO NOT want partner miscounting the diamond suit... say, trying to give us a ruff or playing declarer for Qx when he has Qxx. No opp of any level is going wrong in diamonds in this situation. But partner may... you may say 'he shouldn't' (I wouldn't necessarily agree, depending on what dummy looks like) but partners do go wrong on occasion... and part of our job is to avoid creating error-inducing scenarios unless we are desperate and/or feel that the gain from confusing declarer makes confusing partner worthwhile.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Feb 21 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense.. the part about 'giving declarer a guess'.

Yes, I agree. My argument would be valid only if everyone knew that declarer was void in spades, and everyone knew that everyone else knew.

[jchiu]

I'm hooking lefty for the ♦Q because a gnome told me to.