[foo]

Frances,

WitW? Regardless of the nomenclature used, any reasonable interpretation of "low to the 8 and then low to the T" is simply not the correct way to play AT854+J632

Using shorthand, the correct plan is
"low to the 8 and then either a) play the A if neither opponent played an honor previous, or go back to hand and play the J if 3rd hand won the trick with an honor."

Said shorthand might include the additional explantion that you are playing for a 2-2 split if neither opponent played an honor on round one and you are playing for split honors if 3rd hand won the 1st round with an honor.

Under no circumstances is the correct 2nd round play low to the T for this suit in isolation.

[kfay]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jan 16 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

So it looks like low to the 8, then low to the 10 is best.
If they can't be 4-0 then low to the ace is very very very slightly better.

It's actually a wee more complicated than that. Your correct 2nd round continuation depends on how the 1st round goes:
I'll ignore cases where 3rd hand shows out (KQ97+v) since they are easy.

x,7,8,9 => play the A next (playing for 2-2 split)
x,7,8,H => start with the J next (playing for split honors)

x,9,T,7 => play the A next
x,9,T,H => start with the J next

x,H,A,x => Play the T next. You are cold for 4 tricks
(layout must be H+H97, Hx+Hx, KQ+97, or KQx+x)

This plan loses 2 tricks in two cases where your play affects the outcome:
97+KQ and KQ7+9

Foo I don't get this post at all.

To imply that a player of Frances' calibur doesn't realize the blatantly obvious is rather insulting.

I appreciated her succinct post because it implies she feels she's speaking to peers, not 5-year-olds.

I'm sorry for butting in, having nothing to do with this conversation, but I couldn't even chuckle at the absurdity of this because I was too bewildered at how anyone would have to clarify this post, let alone bring along a lecturing tone.

[kfay]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

Frances,

WitW? Regardless of the nomenclature used, any reasonable interpretation of "low to the 8 and then low to the T" is simply not the correct way to play AT854+J632

Using shorthand, the correct plan is
"low to the 8 and then either a) play the A if neither opponent played an honor previous, or go back to hand and play the J if 3rd hand won the trick with an honor."

Under no circumstances is the correct 2nd round play low to the T.

OK but this actually is funny. LOL.

[foo]

kfay, on Jan 16 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

I was too bewildered at how anyone would have to clarify this post, let alone bring along a lecturing tone.

No "lecturing tone" was expressed or implied.

As for why anyone would what to clarify a potentially misleading or wrong answer...
...getting the right answers and, even more importantly, =explaining= how to get get them so players can later do it themselves is what this site is all about.

I certainly did not intend to insult or offend anyone here.

[MickyB]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

Under no circumstances is the correct 2nd round play low to the T for this suit in isolation.

Having played x-7-8-H on the first trick, it doesn't matter whether you later lead the jack or lead low to the ten - it's just a finesse with two cards out.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

Regardless of the nomenclature used, any reasonable interpretation of "low to the 8 and then low to the T" is simply not the correct way to play AT854+J632

Using shorthand, the correct plan is
"low to the 8 and then either a) play the A if neither opponent played an honor previous, or go back to hand and play the J if 3rd hand won the trick with an honor."

<snip>

Under no circumstances is the correct 2nd round play low to the T for this suit in isolation.

LOL

[jdonn]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

...
the correct plan is
"low to the 8 and then either a) play the A if neither opponent played an honor previous, or go back to hand and play the J if 3rd hand won the trick with an honor."
...

...
Under no circumstances is the correct 2nd round play low to the T for this suit in isolation.

You do realize your option B is gets EXACTLY THE SAME as your play that is 'under no circumstances correct.'

Don't you?

Or maybe as usual, the various people you get into an argument with in every thread are wrong, and it's everyone's fault but yours that you get into a long drawn out pointless argument in every single thread that you post, but has nothing to do with the fact that your posts are consistently nonsense?

[foo]

Folks, we are talking about the technically correct play of suit combinations.

Perhaps I've had certain niceties pummelled into my head when I was a novice that are out of fashion now, but here are some of those that apply here:

1= Whenever possible, use the minimum number of entries to accomplish a given result.

2= If you want 2nd hand to play low, start with a low card. If you want 2nd hand to play high, start with a high card.

3= Unless there's a reason not to, play "the high card from the short side."

Now let's look at the play of AT854+J632 with those principles in mind.

After x,x,8,H we are left with AT54+Jxx
Our only chance of playing the suit for no more losers is if the honors were split:
Hx+Hx or Hxx+H

All 3 principles above indicate that the 2nd round of this suit should start with the J and not the T.

Clearly, the best way to handle a suit in isolation can be drastically different than the best way to play it ITRW ATT. But, if we are discussing the proper way to play a suit in isolation, I was taught to play suit combinations in a rigorously correct manner (eg, the way you would expect to see them listed in an encylopedia of suit combinations).

I was taught that it helps develop good mental habits ATT. *shrug* Maybe such details are no longer considered important.

Finally, the proper way to play this suit is not just dependent on what 2nd hand plays, it is also dependent on what 3rd hand does. The shorthand "low to the 8, then low to the T" does not IMHO express the proper plan in a clear enough manner. Especially to the less exprienced players who may read this thread.

Again, no insult or offense is or was expressed or implied. Just trying to "dot the i's and cross the t's"

[Phil]

JLOL, on Jan 16 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

[post deleted by administrator]

LOL

I wish BBF had the !c feature sometimes.

[jdonn]

One of the niceties pummeled into my head when I was a novice was '8 ever 9 never'. Since this suit has 9 cards in it, we should never play the suit. The proper way to play this suit in isolation is never to play it, and I was taught it's a good mental habit to play suits in the most rigorously correct manner. Therefore playing this suit is under no circumstances correct.

I am glad foo has shown me this logic, suit combinations are making far more sense to me now.

[manudude03]

I've seen a few people mention context as far as playing the suit goes. Here's the actual Southport hand that made me think of the combination.

Scoring: IMP

Opps silent
_W_______E
_________1C (2+)
1S_______2S
4D_______4H
4NT______5H
5S_______P

---

Lead is the ♥6 (they lead 2/4)

(i) How would you play this hand as it is?
(ii) How would you play it if West's ♠7 was the 8? (hope the J+T interchanged doesn't make a difference)

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

After x,x,8,H we are left with AT54+Jxx
Our only chance of playing the suit for no more losers is if the honors were split:
Hx+Hx or Hxx+H

Why can't it be xx+HH, and just drop the last honor?

In fact, if the first trick is x,x,8,H
and on the next trick, LHO plays the 9, the only card left is the king, so who cares whether we lead the jack or small? We could even drop the ten under the jack with no harm.

[foo]

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

One of the niceties pummeled into my head when I was a novice was '8 ever 9 never'. Since this suit has 9 cards in it, we should never play the suit. The proper way to play this suit in isolation is never to play it, and I was taught it's a good mental habit to play suits in the most rigorously correct manner. Therefore playing this suit is under no circumstances correct.

I am glad foo has shown me this logic, suit combinations are making far more sense to me now.

I'd laugh if I thought you were just being funny instead of posting a flawed attempt at a personal attack.

The full quote is "when apriori deciding =without any other information= whether to finesse for a missing Q, 8 ever 9 never". IOW, always take the finesse with 8 cards in the suit and always play for the drop with 9 cards in the suit. This saying is often shortened to "8 ever 9 never", but that does not change the fact that the entire context is as above and must be kept in mind for it to be correct. Or even useful.
...and as we all know, things are rarely this cut and dried ATT...

Josh appears to feel an inappropriate need to take partial quotes out of context in an attempt to denigrate or minimize my honest attempt to add useful knowledge here.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

Josh appears to feel an inappropriate need to take partial quotes out of context in an attempt to denigrate or minimize my honest attempt to add useful knowledge here.

The entire point was that what you said was NOT taken out of context. There was an interesting discussion going on about how to analyze a difficult suit combination, and you as usual poisoned it. Part of how you did so was by using cliches that are designed for players who do not know how to analyze a suit combination! Then when you get called out on anything you change the subject by claiming personal attack, trying to deflect from the nonsense you attempted to write on the topic.

Please answer the following question. Every post I make in this thread from now on will quote this question until you answer it:

Why do you think it is that you, and ONLY you, get involved in a long off-topic argument in EVERY THREAD YOU POST with a variety of different people?

[foo]

manudude03, on Jan 16 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

I've seen a few people mention context as far as playing the suit goes. Here's the actual Southport hand that made me think of the combination.

East,None,IMP,
♠AJ754 ♥8 ♦J ♣AT8753
♠T632 ♥AKJ4 ♦AQT ♣94

...-1C;1S-2S;4D-4H;4N-5H-5S-ap

Lead is the ♥6 (they lead 2/4)

(i) How would you play this hand as it is?
(ii) How would you play it if West's ♠7 was the 8? (hope the J+T interchanged doesn't make a difference)

It certainly looks like whether you make 5S or not is going to boil down to playing ♠'s for 1 loser.

The 8 rather than the 7 in dummy completely changes how you play the suit.
The 8 also gives you ~ +6% or so better chance of success.

We've just about analyzed AJ854+T632 (yes, you can swap the J and T without it mattering) to death.

I posted earlier the best way to play AJ754+T632.

You are going to have to decide if RHO should be considered to have more HCP that LHO. This is dependent on what you feel, and what actually happens, while ATT.
If yes, play the A and hope to drop a stiff honor.
If no, play small from hand intending to hook the J and hoping the layout is KQx+x

[foo]

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

The entire point was that what you said was NOT taken out of context. There was an interesting discussion going on about how to analyze a difficult suit combination, and you as usual poisoned it.

Sorry, but I reject your accusation and assumption.

Other than this side thread, WHICH I DID NOT START, and which I am responding to strictly out of desire to be polite, every post I've made has been on topic and germane to both the specific suit combination under discussion and to showing the thought process for planning suit combinations in general.

The sort of snipping and snide comments being made by you and others in this sub-thread properly belongs in PM's. Not threads that are supposed to be used for educational purposes.

[jdonn]

So other than your posts that were off topic, all your posts were on topic. I agree!

Please note it's not as though you get in a stupid argument with ME in every thread. I bet if I bother to search through all the old threads you have posted in, I can find at least 20 different people who have gotten in long off topic arguments with you.

So I ask again:

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

Why do you think it is that you, and ONLY you, get involved in a long off-topic argument in EVERY THREAD YOU POST with a variety of different people?

[foo]

jtfanclub, on Jan 16 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

After  x,x,8,H  we are left with  AT54+Jxx
Our only chance of playing the suit for no more losers is if the honors were split:
Hx+Hx  or  Hxx+H

Why can't it be xx+HH, and just drop the last honor?

In fact, if the first trick is x,x,8,H
and on the next trick, LHO plays the 9, the only card left is the king, so who cares whether we lead the jack or small? We could even drop the ten under the jack with no harm.

If you decide to play for 97+KQ, you explicitly decide to lose 2 tricks when the suit is Hxx+H.

97+KQ is a ~1/2 as likely as Hxx+H

So unless you have a strong reason to bet against ~2:1 odds, you should not play for the drop.

TBF, ITRW ATT there are most definitely times to ignore the abstract probabilities. But most of the time, especially during the earlier phases of the learning process, one should not buck the odds without ironclad reasons to do so.

As for what happens on round two of this suit, remember that unless you've seen LHO's cards, you are not going to know what will be played until it is too late to legitimately change your mind.
(For an illegal, as in cheating, method for changing one's mind in these situations, read up on something called an "Alcatraz Coup")

[foo]

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

So other than your posts that were off topic, all your posts were on topic. I agree!

Please note it's not as though you get in a stupid argument with ME in every thread. I bet if I bother to search through all the old threads you have posted in, I can find at least 20 different people who have gotten in long off topic arguments with you.

So I ask again:

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

Why do you think it is that you, and ONLY you, get involved in a long off-topic argument in EVERY THREAD YOU POST with a variety of different people?

Once again, you appear to be twisting my posts in an attempt to inflame some sort of conflict. My only off-topic posts here have been attempts to politely respond to others who have made such. I have not and will not create such tangents in this thread. I try, with varying degrees of success, to in general avoid creating tangents as much as possible.

I am not the only person who participates in tangential subthreads on this site.

...and, THAT, sir, is the LAST public post I am making in this thread on this subtopic. Please use PM's if you want to pursue this further.

[jdonn]

You are the only person who gets involved in them in virtually every thread where anyone replies to anything you post.

One more time for you to try to avoid again:

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

Why do you think it is that you, and ONLY you, get involved in a long off-topic argument in EVERY THREAD YOU POST with a variety of different people?