1. At trick 5, if E does not play S9 or 10, should S play for him to have made a mistake or for W to have made a clever falsecard (i.e. from Q9 or Q10 doubleton)? 2. I think that on the actual hand, W should lead H9. W can be almost certain that not only are S not breaking nicely for declarer, but, surprise!, it’s E that has the length. If S is taken in by W’s deception, he will probably play for the only S distribution that will work, namely E holding SQ109, so he will ruff the 3d H with the 8, and down he goes.
bobbywolffMarch 14th, 2020 at 2:18 pm
Hi David,
As all of us have come to expect, your analysis goes to the heart of the counter moves available to the opponents, this time the defense, to the winning moves of declarer.
1. This answer should not depend on a percentage table (due to individual personalities rather than numbers). My general take requires being at the table and sizing up the psychology of the individuals involved and most importantly how the declarer views his opponents knowledge of him and where he stands, keeping in mind that his defensive opponents need to act in concert, a combination very difficult to achieve. Therefore, I would strongly be inclined to finesse the eight on the way back, after LHO contributed the queen.
This choice is simply based on the game itself, wherein no one person (at least I probably haven’t encountered him or her yet) that can visualize fast enough to play the queen and be 100% sure that this play wasn’t necessary and by so doing was allowing a make on a no play hand.
Sure, both great and near-great players are both out there, but neither of them want to live with allowing a no play game or slam to make because of failed fast wit and cunning. Better to take what is natural (which in itself can be deceptive) rather than fly to other avenues which they knew not of. Remember they know that declarer is well aware that they are capable of such a false card, sometimes making a non falsecard a better percentage play than normal.
2, Yes,definitely the nine, rather than the deuce of hearts is the better opening lead on this hand, but sometimes partner needs to know the count to make his right play at an early trick, rather than fall victim to the false card.
This is not to say that I have any percentage knowledge of what I say, since many factors may be involved. What you say does make sense, but what it comes down to, is whether it, on this specific hand will work better, and again, “one swallow does not a summer make”, as pertains to deception by a defender as possibly to the disadvantage of his partner.
A person, more industrious and keener than I would follow up my comments with two examples of my advice, but to do so, would cause my little mind just too much effort to complete the task.
BTW, in any event, the above is not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion, only stating a possible overriding reason, while at the table, not to do so.
However, please keep informing us of your always very worthwhile tweeks to standard, not tricky play, which, in fact, are a very winning type arrow, to have in one’s quiver.
bobbywolffMarch 14th, 2020 at 2:42 pm
Hi again David,
Another thought has me referring our subject, initiated by you, to then, more or less, consider falsecarding the Q from Q10 instead of just playing the Q as a singleton with Terence Reese’s brilliant theory of “Restrictive Choice” which is now authenticated by almost all bridge authorities to be valid, when, in fact that specific situation involving the doubleton Q10 is absolutely certain to be one or the other.
My immediate thought is that it would apply, as long as the player holding it knew enough to treat it as a 50-50 choice (or is that possible). What say you and whomever considers himself qualified to discuss the concept of Restricted Choice.
David WarheitMarch 14th, 2020 at 5:31 pm
Final question: If W plays the S9 or 10 at trick 5 & E plays low on the S led at trick 6, can it possibly be right to pllay W for a singleton? I don’t think so, but he ight.
bobbywolffMarch 14th, 2020 at 6:22 pm
Hi David,
Yes, I think he could, since he could predict, if he is able to quickly divy out that South is 5-2-4-2 and is a good enough player to execute the trump coup, to first play the 9 or 10 in order to confuse his partner’s Q for either the Q10 or Q9, especially the nine, so that declarer may think that West started with Q10 (psychologically, but not practically, more likely than Q9).
However, this whole discussion merely emphasizes how important the highest level of numeracy with its own momentum, allows players to play and defend, at a close to genius level.
No doubt, at least to me, the first quality to possess and then acquire the other necessary talents and experience to be around the world top in ability.
Not as fast as deciding to cheat, but then that is another story. But then when a player or partnership gets consistent great results against excellent opposition, with neither possessing anywhere near that type of numeracy the evidence of chicanery becomes overwhelming, but likely not to a judge or jury with only average or below knowledge of what it takes.
And that is exactly what is wrong with the worldwide bridge world today and for more years than anyone can count.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
1. At trick 5, if E does not play S9 or 10, should S play for him to have made a mistake or for W to have made a clever falsecard (i.e. from Q9 or Q10 doubleton)? 2. I think that on the actual hand, W should lead H9. W can be almost certain that not only are S not breaking nicely for declarer, but, surprise!, it’s E that has the length. If S is taken in by W’s deception, he will probably play for the only S distribution that will work, namely E holding SQ109, so he will ruff the 3d H with the 8, and down he goes.
Hi David,
As all of us have come to expect, your analysis goes to the heart of the counter moves available to the opponents, this time the defense, to the winning moves of declarer.
1. This answer should not depend on a percentage table (due to individual personalities rather than numbers). My general take requires being at the table and sizing up the psychology of the individuals involved and most importantly how the declarer views his opponents knowledge of him and where he stands, keeping in mind that his defensive opponents need to act in concert, a combination very difficult to achieve. Therefore, I would strongly be inclined to finesse the eight on the way back, after LHO contributed the queen.
This choice is simply based on the game itself, wherein no one person (at least I probably haven’t encountered him or her yet) that can visualize fast enough to play the queen and be 100% sure that this play wasn’t necessary and by so doing was allowing a make on a no play hand.
Sure, both great and near-great players are both out there, but neither of them want to live with allowing a no play game or slam to make because of failed fast wit and cunning. Better to take what is natural (which in itself can be deceptive) rather than fly to other avenues which they knew not of. Remember they know that declarer is well aware that they are capable of such a false card, sometimes making a non falsecard a better percentage play than normal.
2, Yes,definitely the nine, rather than the deuce of hearts is the better opening lead on this hand, but sometimes partner needs to know the count to make his right play at an early trick, rather than fall victim to the false card.
This is not to say that I have any percentage knowledge of what I say, since many factors may be involved. What you say does make sense, but what it comes down to, is whether it, on this specific hand will work better, and again, “one swallow does not a summer make”, as pertains to deception by a defender as possibly to the disadvantage of his partner.
A person, more industrious and keener than I would follow up my comments with two examples of my advice, but to do so, would cause my little mind just too much effort to complete the task.
BTW, in any event, the above is not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion, only stating a possible overriding reason, while at the table, not to do so.
However, please keep informing us of your always very worthwhile tweeks to standard, not tricky play, which, in fact, are a very winning type arrow, to have in one’s quiver.
Hi again David,
Another thought has me referring our subject, initiated by you, to then, more or less, consider falsecarding the Q from Q10 instead of just playing the Q as a singleton with Terence Reese’s brilliant theory of “Restrictive Choice” which is now authenticated by almost all bridge authorities to be valid, when, in fact that specific situation involving the doubleton Q10 is absolutely certain to be one or the other.
My immediate thought is that it would apply, as long as the player holding it knew enough to treat it as a 50-50 choice (or is that possible). What say you and whomever considers himself qualified to discuss the concept of Restricted Choice.
Final question: If W plays the S9 or 10 at trick 5 & E plays low on the S led at trick 6, can it possibly be right to pllay W for a singleton? I don’t think so, but he ight.
Hi David,
Yes, I think he could, since he could predict, if he is able to quickly divy out that South is 5-2-4-2 and is a good enough player to execute the trump coup, to first play the 9 or 10 in order to confuse his partner’s Q for either the Q10 or Q9, especially the nine, so that declarer may think that West started with Q10 (psychologically, but not practically, more likely than Q9).
However, this whole discussion merely emphasizes how important the highest level of numeracy with its own momentum, allows players to play and defend, at a close to genius level.
No doubt, at least to me, the first quality to possess and then acquire the other necessary talents and experience to be around the world top in ability.
Not as fast as deciding to cheat, but then that is another story. But then when a player or partnership gets consistent great results against excellent opposition, with neither possessing anywhere near that type of numeracy the evidence of chicanery becomes overwhelming, but likely not to a judge or jury with only average or below knowledge of what it takes.
And that is exactly what is wrong with the worldwide bridge world today and for more years than anyone can count.