Discussion:
Spot the brilliancy !
(too old to reply)
Dave Flower
2016-12-05 10:53:14 UTC
Permalink
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last Saturday's (London) Times.

Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump lead, East following suit:

Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x

A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x

Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a brilliancy; can you spot it ?

Dave Flower
Lorne Anderson
2016-12-05 14:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last Saturday's (London) Times.
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Dave Flower
I do not see a brilliancy. The only logical play for me is to draw
trumps, cash the spade + diamond tops and exit with the club Q.

Makes if LHO wins the club or the J is singleton or RHO wins with the
singleton K or RHO has both high clubs.
Bruce Evans
2016-12-06 01:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last Saturday's
(London) Times.
Post by Dave Flower
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
I don't see any brilliancy, or the information needed to choose the best
line. A brilliancy against 1 lie might be a blunder against others.
Post by Dave Flower
I do not see a brilliancy. The only logical play for me is to draw
trumps, cash the spade + diamond tops and exit with the club Q.
Makes if LHO wins the club or the J is singleton or RHO wins with the
singleton K or RHO has both high clubs.
This loses in 10 cases out of 32: whenever West has KJxxx, KJxx, Jxx or Jx.

Low instead of the Q only loses in 7 cases out of 32: whenever West has
Kxxx, Kxx or Kx.

However, if we were given the necessary information of the trump break and
the discards, then we might be able to to better by ruling out long clubs
with West. Then both lines have only 6 losing cases, and the Q is best
since it gives more chances for West to err by winning an honor.

Also, if trumps are 5-1 or 6-0, then dummy is squeezed out of 1 or 2 clubs;
then we get a better count but our options in clubs are reduced. I think
we can afford 1 club discard, so should always cash 5 trumps first to get
worse discards and better counts.

Bruce
Lorne Anderson
2016-12-06 12:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Evans
This loses in 10 cases out of 32: whenever West has KJxxx, KJxx, Jxx or Jx.
Not so. With KJ to any number of clubs W is endplayed into giving dummy
an entry.
Post by Bruce Evans
Also, if trumps are 5-1 or 6-0, then dummy is squeezed out of 1 or 2 clubs;
Agreed but you have plenty of time to change tack if this is the case.
Tom
2016-12-05 17:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last Saturday's (London) Times.
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Dave Flower
Pull trump, cash SAK, DA, CA. Home if C honor falls. If not, lead Cx and
home if either C honor falls via endplay to dummy.

- Tom Reid
Charles Brenner
2016-12-06 01:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last Saturday's (London) Times.
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.

Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
Charles Brenner
2016-12-06 01:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last Saturday's (London) Times.
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.
Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
Ah, perhaps I didn't take parse David's wording precisely enough -- the above answers the question "*With* one particular like of the EW cards ..." rather than *Against*.

Assuming the brilliancy should be by declarer, I'm trying to imagine what happens when a 6-0 trump break means pulling trumps squeezes the dummy.
Bruce Evans
2016-12-06 02:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last
Saturday's (London) Times.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW
club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll
see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the
King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that
putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in
which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.
Post by Charles Brenner
Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd
play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from
Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
I missed this in a previous analysis. Also, I misanalyzed KJxx(x)
with West in the Q lead case. West ducks, but now South simply plays
low to endplay him. All KJxx(x) layouts can be handled. This gives
10 losing cases for low and 6 losing cases for the Q.
Post by Dave Flower
Ah, perhaps I didn't take parse David's wording precisely enough -- the
above answers the question "*With* one particular like of the EW cards
..." rather than *Against*.
Assuming the brilliancy should be by declarer, I'm trying to imagine
what happens when a 6-0 trump break means pulling trumps squeezes the
dummy.
Now I see "one" possibilty. Dummy is squeezed down to T9x of clubs even
if trumps are 5-1. Now KJxx(x) with West cannot be handled by the Q lead.
West ducks and then pins dummy's T9 with the KJ. West's spots are actually
equivalent to the 87. This gives 10 losing cases for the Q lead again.

If trumps are 6-0, then dummy might be squeezed down to the T9 of clubs
and these can be pinned without ducking anything. South can perhaps
find a brillancy to avoid the squeeze and make against 1 layout (but
go down against normal layouts).

Bruce
Charles Brenner
2016-12-06 10:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last
Saturday's (London) Times.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW
club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll
see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the
King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that
putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in
which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.
Post by Charles Brenner
Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd
play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from
Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
I missed this in a previous analysis. Also, I misanalyzed KJxx(x)
with West in the Q lead case. West ducks, but now South simply plays
low to endplay him. All KJxx(x) layouts can be handled.
To give fair credit to Lorne, that was no doubt his point.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for low and 6 losing cases for the Q.
10? I see at most 9, and realistically more like 6.

Unless you credit RHO with winning K from KJxx when declarer exits low, low and Q are equally effective. Every winning case for one of them corresponds to a winning case for the other by exchanging K for J. There are 6 losing cases for both against pedestrian defenders. Against a brilliant RHO there are still not 10 losing cases for low, only 9.
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Ah, perhaps I didn't take parse David's wording precisely enough -- the
above answers the question "*With* one particular like of the EW cards
..." rather than *Against*.
Assuming the brilliancy should be by declarer, I'm trying to imagine
what happens when a 6-0 trump break means pulling trumps squeezes the
dummy.
Now I see "one" possibilty. Dummy is squeezed down to T9x of clubs even
if trumps are 5-1. Now KJxx(x) with West cannot be handled by the Q lead.
West ducks and then pins dummy's T9 with the KJ. West's spots are actually
equivalent to the 87.
One could assume, but really I think we should have been told more of the club spots.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for the Q lead again.
Yes, that's good. So if trumps are 5-1 declarer should probably exit low.
Post by Bruce Evans
If trumps are 6-0, then dummy might be squeezed down to the T9 of clubs
and these can be pinned without ducking anything.
That was my point. Since David wrote "one particular lie" he might have had in mind the situation that RHO discards on the first trump and the second spade, while LHO shows void in diamonds. Then we know the clubs are 2=3 -- for whatever good that does.
Dave Flower
2016-12-06 11:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last
Saturday's (London) Times.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW
club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll
see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the
King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that
putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in
which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.
Post by Charles Brenner
Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd
play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from
Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
I missed this in a previous analysis. Also, I misanalyzed KJxx(x)
with West in the Q lead case. West ducks, but now South simply plays
low to endplay him. All KJxx(x) layouts can be handled.
To give fair credit to Lorne, that was no doubt his point.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for low and 6 losing cases for the Q.
10? I see at most 9, and realistically more like 6.
Unless you credit RHO with winning K from KJxx when declarer exits low, low and Q are equally effective. Every winning case for one of them corresponds to a winning case for the other by exchanging K for J. There are 6 losing cases for both against pedestrian defenders. Against a brilliant RHO there are still not 10 losing cases for low, only 9.
Yes, that was the brilliancy: East holding K J x x, and winning with the King; note that, in another variation, West must duck in tempo holding J x to beat the contract.

So my view is play CQ against strong opponents, Cx against weak opponents.

Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Ah, perhaps I didn't take parse David's wording precisely enough -- the
above answers the question "*With* one particular like of the EW cards
..." rather than *Against*.
Assuming the brilliancy should be by declarer, I'm trying to imagine
what happens when a 6-0 trump break means pulling trumps squeezes the
dummy.
Now I see "one" possibilty. Dummy is squeezed down to T9x of clubs even
if trumps are 5-1. Now KJxx(x) with West cannot be handled by the Q lead.
West ducks and then pins dummy's T9 with the KJ. West's spots are actually
equivalent to the 87.
One could assume, but really I think we should have been told more of the club spots.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for the Q lead again.
Yes, that's good. So if trumps are 5-1 declarer should probably exit low.
Post by Bruce Evans
If trumps are 6-0, then dummy might be squeezed down to the T9 of clubs
and these can be pinned without ducking anything.
That was my point. Since David wrote "one particular lie" he might have had in mind the situation that RHO discards on the first trump and the second spade, while LHO shows void in diamonds. Then we know the clubs are 2=3 -- for whatever good that does.
Dave Flower
2016-12-06 12:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last
Saturday's (London) Times.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW
club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll
see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the
King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that
putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in
which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.
Post by Charles Brenner
Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd
play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from
Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
I missed this in a previous analysis. Also, I misanalyzed KJxx(x)
with West in the Q lead case. West ducks, but now South simply plays
low to endplay him. All KJxx(x) layouts can be handled.
To give fair credit to Lorne, that was no doubt his point.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for low and 6 losing cases for the Q.
10? I see at most 9, and realistically more like 6.
Unless you credit RHO with winning K from KJxx when declarer exits low, low and Q are equally effective. Every winning case for one of them corresponds to a winning case for the other by exchanging K for J. There are 6 losing cases for both against pedestrian defenders. Against a brilliant RHO there are still not 10 losing cases for low, only 9.
Yes, that was the brilliancy: East holding K J x x, and winning with the King; note that, in another variation, West must duck in tempo holding J x to beat the contract.
So my view is play CQ against strong opponents, Cx against weak opponents.
Dave Flower
Correction to my last post - West must duck from K x (x)

Dave Flower
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Ah, perhaps I didn't take parse David's wording precisely enough -- the
above answers the question "*With* one particular like of the EW cards
..." rather than *Against*.
Assuming the brilliancy should be by declarer, I'm trying to imagine
what happens when a 6-0 trump break means pulling trumps squeezes the
dummy.
Now I see "one" possibilty. Dummy is squeezed down to T9x of clubs even
if trumps are 5-1. Now KJxx(x) with West cannot be handled by the Q lead.
West ducks and then pins dummy's T9 with the KJ. West's spots are actually
equivalent to the 87.
One could assume, but really I think we should have been told more of the club spots.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for the Q lead again.
Yes, that's good. So if trumps are 5-1 declarer should probably exit low.
Post by Bruce Evans
If trumps are 6-0, then dummy might be squeezed down to the T9 of clubs
and these can be pinned without ducking anything.
That was my point. Since David wrote "one particular lie" he might have had in mind the situation that RHO discards on the first trump and the second spade, while LHO shows void in diamonds. Then we know the clubs are 2=3 -- for whatever good that does.
Lorne Anderson
2016-12-06 12:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
Yes, that was the brilliancy: East holding K J x x, and winning
with the King; note that, in another variation, West must duck in
tempo holding J x to beat the contract.
In practice few would duck with Jx and if RHO is good enough to win the
K from KJx you would usually know that. The interesting point is
whether you should stick with the original plan and run the exit from
RHO or change your line when the K wins and you have a good player on
your right. (you clearly do change your plan with weak player on your
right but that will never happen because LHO, unless a paid superstar,
would have gone up with the J).
Bruce Evans
2016-12-06 13:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
This hand is a variation on the hand that appeared in last
Saturday's (London) Times.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Ignoring the excellent contract of 7S, South plays in 6H on a trump
Q J x x x
J
K Q x
10 9 x x
A K
A K Q 10 9 8
A
A Q x x
Against one particular lie of the E/W cards, there is a chance for a
brilliancy; can you spot it ?
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Dave Flower
Dave Flower
If declarer strips trumps & the top spades & diamond then exits a LOW
club (thinking it is just as good exiting Q -- but not quite as we'll
see), RHO stands a chance to beat you by brilliantly winning with the
King. You might think that the fine LHO player with Jx(x) realized that
putting up the J was suicide and therefore ducked to RHO's Kx(x) -- in
which case you'd need to play high on the second round of clubs.
Post by Charles Brenner
Alternatively, if you say that even when RHO wins the club K you'd
play RHO for KJxx and finesse on the way back, then it's LHO's duck from
Jx(x) that is a brilliancy.
I missed this in a previous analysis. Also, I misanalyzed KJxx(x)
with West in the Q lead case. West ducks, but now South simply plays
low to endplay him. All KJxx(x) layouts can be handled.
To give fair credit to Lorne, that was no doubt his point.
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for low and 6 losing cases for the Q.
10? I see at most 9, and realistically more like 6.
Yes, the 10th losing case was forgetting that East is endplayed if
he wins the singleton J.
Post by Charles Brenner
Unless you credit RHO with winning K from KJxx when declarer exits low,
low and Q are equally effective.
I did credit RHO with that after you pointed it out. If he thinks about
it, then this play is not much harder than not going up with Jx or Kx as
LHO.
Post by Charles Brenner
Every winning case for one of them
corresponds to a winning case for the other by exchanging K for J. There
are 6 losing cases for both against pedestrian defenders. Against a
brilliant RHO there are still not 10 losing cases for low, only 9.
The 6 simpler losing cases for low are Kx and Kxx with LHO, while the
6 losing cases for the Q are Jx and Jxx with LHO. I think it is easier
to play low with the K than with the J, so I now think low is better
unless RHO will find the brilliancy.

Er, I have miscounted again. RHO can find the brilliancy with both
KJx or KJxx. If I don't play for the falsecard then this gives 12
losing cases, not 9. And if I do play for the falsecard and always
finesse on return of a low club by RHO, then the extra 6 losing cases
are exchanged with ones where LHO has Jx or Jxx.

The 12 losing cases can be reduced a bit by looking at the spots.
LHO with xx and RHO with KJxx must choose the spot very carefully
to avoid exposing any falsecard. Similary for the 3-2 breaks.

But it is a waste of time to worry about this before knowing the
trump break and the discards.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
Post by Dave Flower
Ah, perhaps I didn't take parse David's wording precisely enough -- the
above answers the question "*With* one particular like of the EW cards
..." rather than *Against*.
Assuming the brilliancy should be by declarer, I'm trying to imagine
what happens when a 6-0 trump break means pulling trumps squeezes the
dummy.
Now I see "one" possibilty. Dummy is squeezed down to T9x of clubs even
if trumps are 5-1. Now KJxx(x) with West cannot be handled by the Q lead.
West ducks and then pins dummy's T9 with the KJ. West's spots are actually
equivalent to the 87.
One could assume, but really I think we should have been told more of the club spots.
I just assumed that they are really x's. They must be 5432 for that.
And then the opponent's spots will be contiguous and it will be easier
for the opponents to falsecard with them.
Post by Charles Brenner
Post by Bruce Evans
This gives 10 losing cases for the Q lead again.
Yes, that's good. So if trumps are 5-1 declarer should probably exit low.
Post by Bruce Evans
If trumps are 6-0, then dummy might be squeezed down to the T9 of clubs
and these can be pinned without ducking anything.
That was my point. Since David wrote "one particular lie" he might have
had in mind the situation that RHO discards on the first trump and the
second spade, while LHO shows void in diamonds. Then we know the clubs
are 2=3 -- for whatever good that does.
It is now clear that "one lie" can only be in the club suit since there
are many interesting lies of the club suit combined with others. And "one"
is still actually 2 or 6 depending on whether different spots give
different lies -- KJx and KJxx with RHO.

Bruce

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...