Bridge news sheet 334
This week’s news sheet no 334 has six articles.
First of all you hold ♠K64 ♥A62 ♦K106 ♣Q1074 and partner opens 1♣, do you respond 2NT or 3NT?
Next there are two Dave columns on the play of the hand. However, one of these is somewhat controversial with, I beliieve, the line suggested by Eddie Kantar being inferior to the more obvious line adopted by my partner.
There is a short note about the slight benefit of playing 1430 and then a play problem concerning combining your chances.
Finally there is a typical artical about bidding again having pre-empted.
Pattaya Bridge Club Weblog 
April 6, 2009 at 7:41 am |
Why not ask Eddie:
Quote
Hello Jean Francois, comment ca va?
It seems like 5NT is the best bid over 3H. As it came up, the 5S bid
over 5D was wrong. It should show the SK.
I guess I thought that if I reduced to the AKQxx and the stiff A of
clubs in dummy I would still have time to ruff a spade catering to 4-2
spades no matter who had the CK, but I retained the small extra chance
of the criss cross squeeze if somehow I sniffed out five spades with
the CK in the same hand. Perhaps that person was suffering so much
that I worked it out. It doesn’t look so good on paper, does it?
Eddie Kantar
End of quote
April 6, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
Against a grand slam it is technically correct to lead a trump
in most cases failure to do so should be analysed. In the hand quoted
obviously North has long diamonds – It is correct to think that South has
long spades and based your line of play on this assumption – Playing on
Spades immediately is careless (you go down if Spades split 6-0) which is
very likely – When you you know the trumps split 4-0 it is an open book –
You also have to add many possibilities of triple squeeze and single squeeze
against North if he has KQJ109 in D
– It is 100% everytime there is 6S/5S + CK in the same hand Indeed Eddie is
right especially with these wild distributions ! Well play Eddie The
percentage issues are totally irrelevant and rather ludicrous (when the differences are only some 2-3 % when used to
critizise the winning line of play ! All the more wrong when the percentages quoted are not correct !
Anyway the mark of the superior player is to win these contracts, and be able to choose the winning line of play when percentages are more or less equivalent ….
Vincit
BTW why dont you rectify one of your more obvious flawed analysis ref to the upgrade of the 5332 to 2NT, you did not even realize 3NT was going down !
Remember you went through all possible gibberish to advise that the quoted hand should be opened 2NT (Good suit) to reach 3NT ….. Totally unmakable
Lack of intellectual honesty ?
April 6, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
NO OFFENSE
but
WHY DO NOT YOU FOCUS ON YOUR OWN ANALYSIS ?
TWO or THREE MISTAKES in every single Newsheet !!!
April 7, 2009 at 3:41 am |
So %’s are irrelevant eh? Call yourself a bridge player? I see no reason to congratulate a player who makes a lucky guess against the odds, although I do realise that experts tend to go for a squeeze instead of a superior straightforward play just because it is more spectacular. And even Eddie admits his line is inferior (“doesn’t look so good on paper”). And if you whish to argue with my calculated odds then how about some mathematics to back it up? The only thing you mention is the 6-1 split, I noted this in my % calculation. It is 2% and Eddie’s line fails a little over 1/2 the time.
Basically, as usual, I am right and you are wrong yet again.
April 7, 2009 at 5:16 am |
First of all it is 6-0 and 5-1 split. A 6-0 is very likely when the dummy comes down and after the lead. Playing Spades you expose yourself to go down immediately ……
There is a difference between “on paper” and “at the table”
In this context (try to read carefully) it is not a question of 2 or 3% if you do not understand this concept you’d better try another game (LOL)
Why do you always distort people’s statements? You did the same with 4333 when we were examining one situation a priori regarding the 1NT opener not 4333 in general. You generalize when everything is different
When you have wild distribution you expect the spades to be at least 5-1/6-0 and the trumps not to split.
No Experts do not do it because it is more spectacular, they do it because it is usually correct. Itseems you do not understand what is implied in Eddie’s remark.
You have obviously never play in International events or against strong opposition
Champions do not care (see R. Markus for instance) about 2 or 3% when they have indications at the table, they happen to know most of the time, just watch themin action, you will be surprised, I tell you it is rather “mean” and laughableto critizise Eddie’s line based on % when it is the winning line, actually I do not “see” any decent player making such a statement.
The apex of you hilarious comments is certainly reached when one cares to read your newsheet
It tells a lot about you level when you mention a “lucky guess” !
Basically as usual you are wrong, as you were wrong and unethical about Psyches and your ruling, as you were constantly wrong in most hands you keep analysing on a weekly basis that have only me as a reader (LOL) even if you write for the masses of novices this is not an excuse for flawed analysis
You did not answer about your upgrade at all costs of the 5332 to reach a 3NT minus one contract why?
If you want to be a good player you have to realize your mistake and you do not. I told you your site is good and very well structured but what you write has nothing to do with “real” bridge, still we can get a flavour of it !
It does not matter to be wrong : just admit it and apologize ! You cannot do it, and you will not do it …..
Also it is not a good strategy at your “level” (average + a lot of knowledge on paper) to critisize Mike lawrence and/or Eddie Kantar especially when you have no experience whatsoever. I wonder why you do that as you have been playing in a very weak field (actually the weaker I have ever played in my whole life).
Focus on your mistake and try to progress instead of repeating like a parrot what some authors say (Bergen !)
Finally yes you should congratulate a player who found the winning line of play (Do you imagine for a second Eddie did not know about ruffing a spade, if he did not do it, there is a reason ….)
Kibbitz Helgemo (one of the best) he would laugh about your statements, it reminds me of two or thre deals he played superbly against the odds because he knew more than the average …..
Cheers
April 7, 2009 at 5:33 am |
Probabilities
Your calculation is a priori and you omit to mention you go down with S 6-0 in your line, and the potential of many other squeezes.
Actually you have to calculate the probabilities after the lead, this is very complex and irrelevant here, your line is more or less equal to Eddie’s the difference is that you lose he wins ….
When I was a very young player I played some tournaments with Rixie Markus in the South of France and in Normandy, this lady was unbelievable at the bridge table, believe me she did not care about % , she was just focusing on winning the tournament and she did most of the time actually the same flavour as some top players now ….. Intuition and table presence !
Anyway against weak players % does not mean too much, everything is possible as shown in your newsheets ! Same against strong players, evrything is possible ….. LOL
Do not worry about 2 or 3% plus or minus, it will not make a difference !
April 7, 2009 at 7:37 am |
On the contrary, the 6-0 line is mentioned. Our line goes down down on a 6-0 split (2%), your line goes down juist over half the time and this 1% is added to your line. The possibilities of a 6-0 split are in included my calculations. And there is no need to drop names, especially if you believe that 2-3% makes no difference.
April 7, 2009 at 7:46 am |
“Playing on Spades immediately is careless (you go down if Spades split 6-0) which is very likely – When you you know the trumps split 4-0 it is an open book”
Well; ho. ho. ho. What a hell of a player this Jean Francois Fohrer is: he can tell from the diamond king lead that trumps are 4-0 and that spades are 6-0. Why, I wonder, is this guy not world champion?
The answere is simple – he simply does not understand the odds.
Even Eddie Kantar admits that his line is nothing special and not particularly good – why can’t you simply accept the laws of mathematics – or are you so arrogant that they do not apply to you?
April 7, 2009 at 10:19 am |
Fair enough, you have not grasped Eddie’s irony who is a very educated and smart man !
It is funny you quote law of mathematics in this auction ! Actually it is rather laughable, if true all champions would be mathematicians, actually most of them are lawyers and/or have no special knowledge in maths (I have and I know when refering to it is ridiculous)
Do you respect Law of mathematics in the hands you comment ! Pedantic and pathetic …
Yes from the lead we can tell North has long diamonds and wild distributions will be on because a good player will lead trumps most of the time against a grand slam ! The type of infderences you are unable to make …
Indeed the lead is the key ….. the very clue you did not mention !
Mr Terry Quested you will never change and any communication with you is a waste of time, tell us why you advised upgrading this 5332 to 2Nt to reach a 3NT cold game (minus one ….)
“he can tell from the diamond king lead that trumps are 4-0 and that spades are 6-0. ”
I never say that, another distorsion, I said it increases the probabilities that spades and trumps will not break and for partnership’s sake it is not good to go down immediately (LOL), this only applies when you have a favourite partner
Continue your ridiculous newsheet. you play another game ….actually as I already told you, focus on your own mistakes and flawed analysis when they are poinred out, the way experts play is far beyond your comprehension at the moment ….LOL
Cheers
Vincit
PS1 : do not forget 4333 is minus 1 …… LOL
April 7, 2009 at 10:34 am |
REMINDER !
Newsheets 327 : UNBELIEVABLE
1) The unbelievable Mr Quested
Q72
K863
98
9862
A109
A2
KQJ52
KQ7
Mr Quested is telling you to upgrade this hand, maybe you should but it does not mean you should open 2NT.
Also one should not be in 3NT, at MP this contract is terrible because the D10 is missing you’ll go down in 70% of cases why should one want to play against the odds ?
In the complete deal, it is impossible to make NINE tricks, but Mr Quested, the Pattaya expert in hand evaluation is telling you to bid 3NT
The same player is talking about Law of Mathematics and will critizize expert from the heights of his ignorance !
Will you rectify or not ?
Please Mr Quested let the shown go on ? Can you tell us what the probabilities on this very simple deal ?
Cheers
The Smiling Tiger
April 7, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
Probabilities : Mr QUESTED’s ultimate bad faith
– You thought the line was about 80%
– You were unable to work out the correct percentage at the table and you would need to refer to a “table”
– A 15-year kid with basic knowledge in probabilities can work the line’s percentage within a matter of 20 seconds
– You did not see there was an alternative line of play (criss-cross) until you read the Book
You can discuss restricted choice or addind your chances or any cases when iyt is a case of 60 vs 40 that is fine …. even 52 vs 48 you have to be careful because probabilities do change, after every single card or every single smile (LOL) this is dynamic ….
So Mr QUESTED give us a break ….the two lines are over 90% this very simple fact you were unable to work it out at the table
Just be honest !
April 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
Against the odds ! Enjoy
Originally Published in Canadian Bridge Canadien, 1995
There are no child prodigies at bridge. Why? Because bridge needs certain qualities that belong only to adults. At least one quality: the ability to think globally, to collect all pertinent clues and to process them in order to obtain an answer covering all bases, all of them.
The great John Crawford once found himself playing a grand slam, with trumps AKQ10xxx facing a singleton, and no losers anywhere else. While he was pondering (yes, even with 18 tricks, great players make a plan; do you?), he noticed that no kibitzer was moving away. Crawford reasoned that if nobody was leaving, there was a reason. Looking at his cards, he found out the only suit with a possible loser was trumps. That was the reason the kibitzers were not leaving, there might be a problem in trumps. Otherwise people would have left. So he played a trump to his 10 for 13 tricks, East having started with Jxxx. That’s really collecting and using all the evidence.