Help
After a 9♠ lead by E, declarer won in dummy, played small ♣ and when W followed with the 4♣, he played A♣, and have to lose 2 ♣ tricks for -1.
The other table is in 3NT easily making.
Is 6♣ considered a good slam?
Anybody to blame here?
Page 1 of 1
Assign Blame?
#1
- Group: Members
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Singapore
Posted 2008-June-03, 22:59
After a 9♠ lead by E, declarer won in dummy, played small ♣ and when W followed with the 4♣, he played A♣, and have to lose 2 ♣ tricks for -1.
The other table is in 3NT easily making.
Is 6♣ considered a good slam?
Anybody to blame here?
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,502
- Joined: 2007-December-22
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:07
6♣ is a reasonable spot.
[Incorrect stuff deleted]
[Incorrect stuff deleted]
This post has been edited by 655321: 2008-June-04, 00:39
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:08
Slam is OK (46% I think), but I think you'd rather not be there. Give either hand the ♣10 and its pretty good.
"Phil" on BBO
#4 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:21
I think this suit combo is fascinating since you cannot pick up 4-0 trumps.
Small to the ace seems to pick up all 2-2's and KQT onside and HTx onside. So what's the catch?
Well the catch is that if your plan is to cover the ten with the jack (to pick up KQT), then that means they should play the ten from BOTH HTx and Tx, which would force you to lose to Tx now. However... if they're playing the ten from HTx and Tx then you can play the ace on the ten, losing to KQT but picking up Tx and HTx. But...that now means if they play small first you can play them for KQ4...
It seems to me like the best strategy now involves doing something like this: playing small half the time with HTx, and playing the ten half the time with HTx. Also, with Tx always play the ten. This means when you play small, it is neutral for them to play the ace or the 9, so let's say they'll play the ace. If you play the ten it is again neutral for them whether to play the jack (planning on playing you for Tx), or the ace (catering to KQT). Let's say they play the ace again.
This means now that if the opps defend like that you will lose to KQT and KQ4 (best you can do). So you are picking up all 2-2's and HTx onside. Alternatively you can choose to pick up KQT and KQ4 but now lose to HTx (2 combos).
Small to the ace seems to pick up all 2-2's and KQT onside and HTx onside. So what's the catch?
Well the catch is that if your plan is to cover the ten with the jack (to pick up KQT), then that means they should play the ten from BOTH HTx and Tx, which would force you to lose to Tx now. However... if they're playing the ten from HTx and Tx then you can play the ace on the ten, losing to KQT but picking up Tx and HTx. But...that now means if they play small first you can play them for KQ4...
It seems to me like the best strategy now involves doing something like this: playing small half the time with HTx, and playing the ten half the time with HTx. Also, with Tx always play the ten. This means when you play small, it is neutral for them to play the ace or the 9, so let's say they'll play the ace. If you play the ten it is again neutral for them whether to play the jack (planning on playing you for Tx), or the ace (catering to KQT). Let's say they play the ace again.
This means now that if the opps defend like that you will lose to KQT and KQ4 (best you can do). So you are picking up all 2-2's and HTx onside. Alternatively you can choose to pick up KQT and KQ4 but now lose to HTx (2 combos).
#5 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:27
pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 12:08 AM, said:
Slam is OK (46% I think), but I think you'd rather not be there. Give either hand the ♣10 and its pretty good.
Low to the jack and then the ace picks up all 2-2 splits, and KQx/KQT onside. That is about 52.5%. You can subtract a negligible amount for random trick 1 ruffs, but it's still over 50 which is fine.
#6
- Group: Members
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Singapore
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:34
Jlall, on Jun 4 2008, 01:27 PM, said:
pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 12:08 AM, said:
Slam is OK (46% I think), but I think you'd rather not be there. Give either hand the ♣10 and its pretty good.
Low to the jack and then the ace picks up all 2-2 splits, and KQx/KQT onside. That is about 52.5%. You can subtract a negligible amount for random trick 1 ruffs, but it's still over 50 which is fine.
Correct me if I am wrong
After W follows with the small ♣, the chances of E having a singleton K or Q is higher than the singleton T right?
So playing the A♣ now has a higher chance than playing the J♣?
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:41
Jlall, on Jun 3 2008, 09:27 PM, said:
pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 12:08 AM, said:
Slam is OK (46% I think), but I think you'd rather not be there. Give either hand the ♣10 and its pretty good.
Low to the jack and then the ace picks up all 2-2 splits, and KQx/KQT onside. That is about 52.5%. You can subtract a negligible amount for random trick 1 ruffs, but it's still over 50 which is fine.
Low to the 9 is a lot better.
My 46% is off. Its more like 57%
"Phil" on BBO
#8 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:42
Simpleboi, on Jun 4 2008, 12:34 AM, said:
Jlall, on Jun 4 2008, 01:27 PM, said:
pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 12:08 AM, said:
Slam is OK (46% I think), but I think you'd rather not be there. Give either hand the ♣10 and its pretty good.
Low to the jack and then the ace picks up all 2-2 splits, and KQx/KQT onside. That is about 52.5%. You can subtract a negligible amount for random trick 1 ruffs, but it's still over 50 which is fine.
Correct me if I am wrong
After W follows with the small ♣, the chances of E having a singleton K or Q is higher than the singleton T right?
So playing the A♣ now has a higher chance than playing the J♣?
see my edited post above, it is more complicated than that.
#9 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-03, 23:43
pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 12:41 AM, said:
Jlall, on Jun 3 2008, 09:27 PM, said:
pclayton, on Jun 4 2008, 12:08 AM, said:
Slam is OK (46% I think), but I think you'd rather not be there. Give either hand the ♣10 and its pretty good.
Low to the jack and then the ace picks up all 2-2 splits, and KQx/KQT onside. That is about 52.5%. You can subtract a negligible amount for random trick 1 ruffs, but it's still over 50 which is fine.
Low to the 9 is a lot better.
My 46% is off. Its more like 57%
You are wrong. Please read my post above!
Edit: And if you do not agree, please tell me how you will play when they play the ten, and how you will play when they play low the first time.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-04, 00:04
So we are clear:
I'm not playing the Ace, I'm running the 7. If it loses to the 10, I play the Ace. If it loses to the K/Q, I'm covering the 10 with the Jack.
I'm picking up (in West) KQT4, KQT, KT4, QT4, KT, QT, K4, Q4.
I'm losing to KQ4 and T4 (I don't think it matters how often the 10 is played). And of course the obvious void, 4, 10, Q and K.
To confirm I haven't lost my marbles, I ran this through SuitPlay. Twice.
Where in the world are you coming up with:
or
I'm not playing the Ace, I'm running the 7. If it loses to the 10, I play the Ace. If it loses to the K/Q, I'm covering the 10 with the Jack.
I'm picking up (in West) KQT4, KQT, KT4, QT4, KT, QT, K4, Q4.
I'm losing to KQ4 and T4 (I don't think it matters how often the 10 is played). And of course the obvious void, 4, 10, Q and K.
To confirm I haven't lost my marbles, I ran this through SuitPlay. Twice.
Where in the world are you coming up with:
Quote
...since you cannot pick up 4-0 trumps.
or
Quote
Small to the ace seems to pick up all 2-2's and KQT onside
"Phil" on BBO
#11
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-June-04, 00:09
Phil the South hand just has two entries, so you can't pick up 4-0 trumps ever.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#12 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-04, 00:15
I am really not trying to have a fight! I do ask that when I say "you are wrong" and post why, you really think about it and think about what I posted. I may be a jerk, but I am usually right, especially when I say to someone "you are wrong." Yes, that may be arrogant to say, but please re-read my post. I know it was complicated. I will respond to this, and I am hopefully being civil, I just ask respectfully that you read what I say in this post, thanks!
Let's start with this since it is important:
You don't agree with this. Ok. There are 2 entries to dummy. Ruffs do not count obviously, since you need all 3 trumps to pick up KQTx onside usually. If you ruff you lose a finesse.
When you lead the 7 (using entry 1 to get there), I cover with the queen. If you win, use your last dummy entry, and lead the 5, I win the king. I now have Tx of trumps, you have J9, and you have no more entries to dummy.
Hopefully you see now why you cannot pick up KQTx of trumps onside.
Second and less important:
You keep taking my words out of context and quoting them. Everything I wrote was centered around DISPROVING that statement.
To be clear, my claim is that with correct defense you will never do better than picking up all 2-2s, and 2 of these 4: KQT, KQx, QTx, KTx. That is 52.5% (with rounding).
Suitplay thinks that you can pick up KQTx. Hopefully we have established at this point that you cannot pick up KQTx. I would encourage players who are trying to improve to think about these things without suitplay, because it cannot account for things like that.
I agree with this, with the exception that you also lose to KQT4. This is an inferior line than either low to the ace or low to the jack, because you are losing to a 2-2 break and a 3-1 break rather than losing to 2 3-1 breaks.
Let's start with this since it is important:
Quote
Where in the world are you coming up with:
...since you cannot pick up 4-0 trumps.
...since you cannot pick up 4-0 trumps.
You don't agree with this. Ok. There are 2 entries to dummy. Ruffs do not count obviously, since you need all 3 trumps to pick up KQTx onside usually. If you ruff you lose a finesse.
When you lead the 7 (using entry 1 to get there), I cover with the queen. If you win, use your last dummy entry, and lead the 5, I win the king. I now have Tx of trumps, you have J9, and you have no more entries to dummy.
Hopefully you see now why you cannot pick up KQTx of trumps onside.
Second and less important:
Quote
or
Small to the ace seems to pick up all 2-2's and KQT onside
Small to the ace seems to pick up all 2-2's and KQT onside
You keep taking my words out of context and quoting them. Everything I wrote was centered around DISPROVING that statement.
To be clear, my claim is that with correct defense you will never do better than picking up all 2-2s, and 2 of these 4: KQT, KQx, QTx, KTx. That is 52.5% (with rounding).
Quote
To confirm I haven't lost my marbles, I ran this through SuitPlay. Twice.
Suitplay thinks that you can pick up KQTx. Hopefully we have established at this point that you cannot pick up KQTx. I would encourage players who are trying to improve to think about these things without suitplay, because it cannot account for things like that.
Quote
I'm losing to KQ4 and T4 (I don't think it matters how often the 10 is played). And of course the obvious void, 4, 10, Q and K.
I agree with this, with the exception that you also lose to KQT4. This is an inferior line than either low to the ace or low to the jack, because you are losing to a 2-2 break and a 3-1 break rather than losing to 2 3-1 breaks.
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-04, 00:21
cherdano, on Jun 3 2008, 10:09 PM, said:
Phil the South hand just has two entries, so you can't pick up 4-0 trumps ever.
True, I guess I need to throw out the KQT4...
"Phil" on BBO
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-04, 00:23
Jlall, on Jun 3 2008, 10:15 PM, said:
I am really not trying to have a fight!
Hehe I'm not either
"Phil" on BBO
#15 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-04, 00:26
I guess I should add that everything I have said is purely theoretical.
In practice you lead low off the dummy, and if they play low you play the ace, and if they play the ten you cover and then play for the drop later. This is because no one ever plays the ten from HTx (it is a strange play and would be a big loser if partner had stiff jack for instance, not 2 mention a number of 2 card holdings if the defenders didn't know how many cards the declarer had in the suit).
If those assumptions are true then in practice you can indeed pick up all 2-2 splits + KQT onside + HTx which is an improvement by a full combination (hence why I said initially it seems like you can do that...then went on to describe later why in theory you cannot).
In practice you lead low off the dummy, and if they play low you play the ace, and if they play the ten you cover and then play for the drop later. This is because no one ever plays the ten from HTx (it is a strange play and would be a big loser if partner had stiff jack for instance, not 2 mention a number of 2 card holdings if the defenders didn't know how many cards the declarer had in the suit).
If those assumptions are true then in practice you can indeed pick up all 2-2 splits + KQT onside + HTx which is an improvement by a full combination (hence why I said initially it seems like you can do that...then went on to describe later why in theory you cannot).
#16
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-04, 01:36
nige1, on Jun 3 2008, 11:15 PM, said:
Thank you Jlall: interesting and instructive
echo that..
"Phil" on BBO
#18
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2008-June-04, 03:01
it is an interesting suit
back to the original question: looks like a good auction to me, and nothing wrong with the final contract.
back to the original question: looks like a good auction to me, and nothing wrong with the final contract.
#19
- Group: Members
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Singapore
Posted 2008-June-04, 23:16
Thanks all for the reply
Esp Justin who gave a detailed analysis on the suit, learned a lot too
So based on theory, its even as to whether to play the A or the J, however in practice, playing the A is likely to succeed more of the time right?
Really interesting
Esp Justin who gave a detailed analysis on the suit, learned a lot too
So based on theory, its even as to whether to play the A or the J, however in practice, playing the A is likely to succeed more of the time right?
Really interesting
Page 1 of 1
Team game
Bidding by NS without interference:
1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠ (4sf Inv+)
3♣-3NT
4♠-6♣
AP