[lamford]

---

24-board match. Knockout. ALT final, so high standard.

West leads the Q♣ following his partner's double of Drury, and East overtakes and plays two more high clubs. Like those dreaded casino games where you have to decide whether to go hi or lo, you have a nasty decision. What do you do?

[smerriman]

Given this is in the Expert forum, I'm clearly missing something. If I ruff with the ten, and it loses to the Jack, I'm down immediately (no way East passes with AKJxxx and the king of spades). So I see no alternative to ruffing high.

[Stephen Tu]

Seems to me that given 2-6 clubs, HJ/HJx offside is 22% , Hx/void is around 10.6, so go up?

[johnu]

Did West swindle declarer by leading ♣Q from queen from 3, 4 or 5 card suit? In today's climate, I would consider that to be a suspicious lead.

I would probably ruff high and try to drop ♥J. If West has ♥Jxx, there is a possible endplay if West is 5=3=3=2.

[lamford]

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-27, 00:08, said:

Seems to me that given 2-6 clubs, HJ/HJx offside is 22% , Hx/void is around 10.6, so go up?

"Given 2-6 clubs" is the part of that sentence with which I disagree. I would always lead the queen from Qxx if partner doubled Drury, and I would always double Drury with AKJxx. Former Bermuda Bowl finalist Terje Aa ruffed with the ten. Virtue had to be its own reward as the lead was from Qx and the leader had Jx of trumps, and the king of spades as we know.

The other table found the winning line.

[Stephen Tu]

I always lead low from Qxx so partner has reliable count. Declarer's play is right if playing against you but not me.

[Cyberyeti]

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-27, 04:15, said:

I always lead low from Qxx so partner has reliable count. Declarer's play is right if playing against you but not me.

This, plenty of holdings where partner either overtakes your Q and cashes a second or allows your Q to hold and takes the second where he doesn't know that he has to lead a spade next to protect you from the endplay rather than try to promote a trump which isn't happening because you're following to the next one.

[lamford]

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-27, 04:15, said:

I always lead low from Qxx so partner has reliable count. Declarer's play is right if playing against you but not me.

The problem with low is when dummy has Kxx and partner AJ9xxx. He will not know if you have Txx or Qxx. Victor Silverstone told me years ago in broad Scottish, "Wha yer' pard playing the jock and lose to queenie, tatties o'wer the side." That means, roughly, when partner doubles their artificial bid for the lead, start with your highest card.

[lamford]

 smerriman, on 2020-September-26, 17:49, said:

Given this is in the Expert forum, I'm clearly missing something.

expertise

[smerriman]

 lamford, on 2020-September-27, 06:44, said:

expertise

Oh well, you won't learn if you don't try. At least I have the consolation that johnu, Stephen Tu, and the team that won 12 IMPs, also lack the same expertise. Guess it can't have been such a high standard event after all!

[lamford]

 smerriman, on 2020-September-27, 14:04, said:

Oh well, you won't learn if you don't try. At least I have the consolation that johnu, Stephen Tu, and the team that won 12 IMPs, also lack the same expertise. Guess it can't have been such a high standard event after all!

Well, multiple European and World winner Terje Aa went off, ruffing with the ten, so he must have misplayed it compared with the first-time finalist in the other room who ruffed high and dropped the doubleton jack ... As you say, not a high standard. Or, as Victor would say, "Yer heid’s full o’ mince".

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think Victor's recommendation is universal though. Can't remember any other books or articles advocating this. Certainly the declarer stiff Q position is an issue, but having the wrong count can also make the defense go wrong on other layouts, and reasonably often when declarer has stiff Q opposite Kxx it's a breakeven position no matter which card you play as east.

[mikeh]

This is an interesting hand, for reasons that no-one has yet commented upon.

East passed in 3rd seat. Yes, he’s red, but so are we. Most top players, and many not-top players, would open 3C with AKJxxx and an unbalanced hand, especially short in a major.

Therefore, subject to the topic of what one should lead from Qxx, I think there is a powerful inference that, unless east is known to be ultra-conservative, he does not hold a stiff heart. We’ll get back to what that means, for our play at trick 3, in a moment.

As for the lead issue, with all respect to Mr. Silverstone, I think he’s wrong. More importantly, I think that few players would agree with him, even if he were, in theory, correct.Of course, at the table I’d ask west whether they have an agreement, but would expect to hear....no.

Firstly, count is more likely to be important than making sure partner knows we do or do not have the Queen.

Secondly, the times when his knowing where the Queen is located is important are extremely rare.

Consider: the King must be in dummy. Often it won’t be.

Secondly, losing to declarer’s short Queen has to cost the contract....remember, this is imps. If we pop the Ace, and declarer has Qx, we’ve given him an unnecessary winner. If we pop the Ace and drop his stiff Queen, the King is now a winner. Thus it matters only when playing the Jack (or 10 from AJ10xx) means we don’t ever get a club trick and that, had we played the Ace, setting up a club trick for declarer did him no good.

Good luck waiting for that parlay to happen.

So, back to clubs being 2=6.

When does a high ruff win?

When west has specifically Jx or stiff Jack. Btw, while the odds of west being void in hearts are vanishingly low, either ruff wins so I won’t consider that further.

When does the 10 win? East has specifically Jxx.

That’s it.....

So the question becomes whether east’s Jxx is more likely than xx or xxx in his hand (giving west J or Jx).

Just within th3 heart suit, the odds are 4-3 in favour of ruffing high.

But there’s more.

We are missing 4 hearts, 6 spades and 8 diamonds. Assuming east is some 6322, which suit is least likely to be the tripleton? Hearts, and by a wide margin.

The most likely split in hearts is 2-2, if east has AKJxxx in clubs, and is not ultra-conservative. Therefore, to me, unless my inferences are founded on premises that should be seen, at the table, as unwarranted, ruffing with the 10 was an error.

I don’t care how good South is. The best players in the world, absent self-kibitzing, make mistakes....more than most non-experts realize because the mistakes are subtle and involve factors, or failure to consider factors, to which most players are oblivious. As one example, I’ve played enough bridge that I am morally certain that I’ve missed chances for esoteric squeezes simply because I’m not good enough to recognize them. For me, that’s not really a mistake, but for a true WC player it might be....and only WC players would even see that an opportunity was missed.

Anyway, my point is that a great player can get these wrong, or take a losing view, without that detracting from his or her properly recognized WC status.

Now, my premises may be flawed. Indeed, if west were known to lead Q from Qxx, or even thought to quite possibly have done so, all of the forgoing falls away, since nobody preempts red on AKJxx.

Now the 10 is, imo, best, since it caters to Jxx in West, which is slightly more likely than Jxx in east (who has 8 non-clubs to west’s 10 non-clubs)


I apologize for the length of the post🙃

[lamford]

 mikeh, on 2020-September-28, 15:38, said:

I apologize for the length of the post��

You make some interesting points, but there are many who would open 3C on AKJxxx, third in hand, with or without "a bit of shape". I might do so with xxx Jxx x AKJxxx. Now ruffing high goes off. Swap the red suits around and you cannot make it. On the actual hand, 3-2-2-6, one player in the other semi-final did open 3C. If South has, say, Kxx Jxx, xxxx Qxx, he can (or should be able to) see the potential pseudo-promotion and should lead the queen of clubs. And if his partner is asked whether he might do that, he should just answer "Que?"

One thing you are certain of, if East only has five clubs, he wouldn't have opened 3C.

Gregory: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of East's opening bid.
Gregory: East did not make an opening bid.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.

[lamford]

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-28, 15:24, said:

I don't think Victor's recommendation is universal though. Can't remember any other books or articles advocating this. Certainly the declarer stiff Q position is an issue, but having the wrong count can also make the defense go wrong on other layouts, and reasonably often when declarer has stiff Q opposite Kxx it's a breakeven position no matter which card you play as east.

I have not seen it in a book either and it was advice from Victor to my Welsh International partner Gary Jones, on a hand where declarer had the stiff jack and dummy Kxx. Declarer claimed in 6NT when West led low, and East started cursing and swearing. It was 5 off if you led the queen!

[Stephen Tu]

 lamford, on 2020-September-28, 16:26, said:

I have not seen it in a book either and it was advice from Victor to my Welsh International partner Gary Jones, on a hand where declarer had the stiff jack and dummy Kxx. Declarer claimed in 6NT when West led low, and East started cursing and swearing. It was 5 off if you led the queen!

Interesting bidding to land in NT with declarer having stiff J. Maybe there was some info in the bidding to suggest lead of Q might be more effective, plus that was NT and in a slam where considerations might be different than vs a suit in game. I don't think it's right to just lead high from honor as just std practice. If LHO finds the fake promotion from HJxx/CQxx, I simply congratulate him, and hope he tries again on some other hand where this tactic throws partner off from the right defense.

[mikeh]

 lamford, on 2020-September-28, 16:22, said:

You make some interesting points, but there are many who would open 3C on AKJxxx, third in hand, with or without "a bit of shape". I might do so with xxx Jxx x AKJxxx. Now ruffing high goes off. Swap the red suits around and you cannot make it. On the actual hand, 3-2-2-6, one player in the other semi-final did open 3C. If South has, say, Kxx Jxx, xxxx Qxx, he can (or should be able to) see the potential pseudo-promotion and should lead the queen of clubs. And if his partner is asked whether he might do that, he should just answer "Que?"

One thing you are certain of, if East only has five clubs, he wouldn't have opened 3C.

Gregory: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of East's opening bid.
Gregory: East did not make an opening bid.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.

You might try reading my admittedly long post all the way through. As I pointed out, ruffing high loses to someone who opened 3C (or who passed) with 2=3=2=6 and Hxx in hearts. So what? Ruffing with the 10 loses every time East has 3=2=2=6 or 2=2=3=6 without the heart jack. Care to guess as to the relative likelihood’s of those 3 holdings? Suffice it to say that ruffing high is, by far, the odds on play once you assume east has 6 clubs, and this is true regardless of whether he passed or opened, since you’re down if Lho has Jxx in hearts no matter what (thus you can ignore east having any stiff heart)

[lamford]

 mikeh, on 2020-September-28, 17:36, said:

You might try reading my admittedly long post all the way through. As I pointed out, ruffing high loses to someone who opened 3C (or who passed) with 2=3=2=6 and Hxx in hearts. So what? Ruffing with the 10 loses every time East has 3=2=2=6 or 2=2=3=6 without the heart jack. Care to guess as to the relative likelihood’s of those 3 holdings? Suffice it to say that ruffing high is, by far, the odds on play once you assume east has 6 clubs, and this is true regardless of whether he passed or opened, since you’re down if Lho has Jxx in hearts no matter what (thus you can ignore east having any stiff heart)

I did read your post; I always do as it is worth reading. Fortunately we can decide between the two lines almost exactly. Firstly, I agree that it is right to ruff high if the clubs are known to be 6-2 (65% to 41%), but the opponents are not on your side, so you cannot conclude that. Let us say that we are playing against Arakiel and Arariel, two angels, who are not only fully familiar with game theory, but also defend so perfectly that they have been (wrongly) accused of self-kibitzing. They have, but don't need as they are omniscient, an agreement that a double of Drury always shows two of the top three club honours. They will always lead the queen in this situation, and particularly with ♥Jxx, playing for a pseudo-promotion. All we know is that West began with Qx of clubs and East began with the AKJ. We do know that East did not open 3C. We have the following (almost exact) chances, assuming the ♠K is wrong:
https://www.dropbox....Layout.png?dl=0

So, if the clubs are 6-2, then ruffing high is a big winner. But it loses whenever they are not, big time. And both the auction and probability theory suggest that they are not 2-6. If you consider there is only a 25% chance that the Q is from Qxx or longer, then you would be right to ruff with the ten. Clubs were 6-2 here, so sometimes virtue has to be its own reward.

Aa played the hand correctly, and Igoe misplayed it in the other room.

[lamford]

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-28, 17:26, said:

I don't think it's right to just lead high from honor as just std practice.

Nor do I. Only when partner has doubled Drury, doubled 3NT asking for a lead of dummy's suit, or doubled a cue bid or Blackwood response. If you lead low from ♠Kxx ♥Jxx ♦xxxx ♣Qxx on this auction, you should not complain if your partner dropped you. You are likely to have two clubs and a spade trick. Where is your fourth one likely to come from?