Hi Mr. Wolff,

Is the key to the hand the lead of the S2? After all, if east had the SJ and the DK, or even if the hearts were 5-2, the winning play would involve throwing 2 clubs on the S10 and SK, ruffing a club on table with the DQ and playing DA and another trump.

All perhaps depends here on whether the card led by West would allow east holding SAJxxx(x) to place south with both the SK and S10 when he would know not lead another spade – or are we into double-bluff and playing one anyway? Any thoughts here?

Regards,

Iain Climie.

Theory of Card Migration.

(Or, as our Host wrote, “as the cards lie”.)

Hi Jim2,

Possibly true but, on the subject of “what if?”, imagine East has SAJxxxx HQx DKx CJxx and places South with e.g. SK109 HAx DJ10xxxx CKx what can he lead? The S9 could even be a false card from SK9x (I must try this) possibly talking East out of a safe spade return. West presumably leads the Lowest from S10xx although his raise is quite light. Still DKx could be with West when a trump back at T2 would not appeal.

My compliments to Mr. Wolff for not conceding a huge number on the minor suit monster the other day. He smelt a rat where I didn’t! I loved the day job jest though – me too.

Couldn’t East lead the QH in your construct?

On that other hand, I knew it could be a “Kobayashi Maru,” because your posting it made it a conditional probability situation. I simply ignored that aspect and gave you the answer I would have done at the table.

Must keep day job.

I meant that __I__ must keep day job.

Actually yes if he has the DK but not in the case where West has DKx(x). I’ll have a think about the cases where the contract still makes after a diamond to the Q loses. Heart honours falling or a H-C squeeze possibility. Brain may now hurt worse than in day job.

Hi Iain,

As usual, your keen mind immediately jumps to the heart of this hand and thus wanting to, of course, discuss the key play.

I would be reluctant to trust all my opponents, but seemingly, at least to me, once after supporting partner voluntarily, it would be normal for the opening leader, whether holding three or four, but not containing a card higher than the nine to lead the highest one so that partner would know what to do, if say Kxx came down in dummy and he did not possess the AQ, but rather the AJ.

It would (should) be thought by experienced players that leading the highest card, especially after supporting partner, is of more value to partner in this type of situation than would be a count signal. I’ll even go so far as to say when bridge learning and style was in its infancy (ala 1930) Ely Culbertson suggested that once partner overcalled, the opening leader should lead the highest card in his suit. This was later amended when declarer had, at one time, bid NT, almost always showing at least one major honor and since that long ago era, the compromise seems to have settled on whether or not the opening leader has supported partner or not. If he has not supported, a count signal might be best, instead of the highest from three or four little.

BTW, the same thinking also applies in the middle of the defense when, after overcalling and then choosing a different lead, the original third seat defender would probably follow a similar pattern on deciding which card in partner’s suit to switch. As usual there might be exceptions, but the idea is to inform partner, depending on the particular situation, what partner is more likely to need to know (whether number or quality).

As an epilogue to this hand, if everything else is equal, it is usually a percentage play to believe that opponents (particularly known good ones) are usually doing the right thing for themselves, rather than presenting you with another trick as would East, on this hand leading back a spade, while holding the jack. Remember he cannot see your hand and if not holding the king of trumps, would normally assume that you held it.

Thanks for getting this somewhat important subject on the table.

Hi Jim2,

Working backwards sometimes helps eliminate the need for a book which defines fairly common foreign language significant caveats, but nevertheless not known by the reader.

“Kobayashi Maru” must refer to what authors Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Alfred Hitchcock used to extreme, when some kind of logic situation is presented, it only could be a problem, if the answer is against the odds, suggesting strongly that the opposite of what normally be thought is the bulls-eye.

Yes, bridge (particularly the highest-level kind), often involves itself with that when one side or the other creates a smoke screen playing with their opponents minds. A great allure and one special advantage which bridge presents as opposed to chess which is always totally transparent and thus above board (so to speak) for both opponents to clearly see.

And to both you and Iain, do not ever think that head hurting is strictly applied to you, but when mine does, I do not show the determination which you show, I simply withdraw my thinking process which results in me making more errors than I should at the table, but does allow me to find out what I should have done faster than most.

“Kobayashi Maru” is a Star Trek reference.

It refers to a situation where all actions lead to failure/disaster.

(Unless you are James Tiberius Kirk who sneakily reprograms the computer to enable him to cheat.)

Hi Jim2,

Playing sophisticated games with you is obviously a challenge I am not winning.

Perhaps I will buy a book (if there is one) which defines oft used, but often misunderstood foreign phrases (at least they sound like) rather than open my mouth (or engage in writing) which removes all doubt to my ignorance.

Your description has enabled me to re-evaluate and thence better understand your example hand a number of comments above. Learning is an underestimated pleasure.

Also, is it your guess that James Tiberius Kirk played bridge or was space travel so fast that there was no time for it? If it was, sorry for him since he, with his reprograms, might have always known what hands to expect.

On the Enterprise holodeck, he could have set up and played rounds with avatars that looked like, sounded like, and played like Culbertson, Jacoby, Crane, Markus, Sheinwold, Belladonna ….