[billw55]

Trump Echo, on 2014-July-22, 16:06, said:

She insisted my lead cost us a trick.

LOL

Maybe this should go in the "clueless comments" thread.

Also, you are supposed to remove player names before posting the hand record. An admin may scold you

[Trump Echo]

billw55, on 2014-July-24, 06:07, said:

LOL

Maybe this should go in the "clueless comments" thread.

Also, you are supposed to remove player names before posting the hand record. An admin may scold you

Oh ok. Thanks

[kenberg]

A general point:

There are two kinds of discussions. The far more useful kind involves partnership understandings."Back at trick 6, I took your discard of the heart deuce as suit preference rather than attitude or count, is that how you intended it?" The second, usually far less useful, type is where one player instructs the other in how to play. I often go over a hand later to see if a bad result was due to bad luck, good play by an opponent, or a dumb move by me. I am usually open to a thoughtful comment from my partner, or even from an opponent, but players should tread carefully here.

This case at hand is common. I think that more often than not the player who makes the most noise and the player who has made the error are one and the same. For many people it would be very useful if they restrained from bringing up an error by partner until they have discovered and acknowledged at least five errors of their own. I make a lot of errors. Someone who says that s/he does not is either a world champion or oblivious. And really, my guess is that most world champions would acknowledge making more than a few errors. Probably their idea of "error" is a good deal more sophisticated than yours or mine.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2014-July-24, 07:04, said:

I think that more often than not the player who makes the most noise and the player who has made the error are one and the same.

This is my observation also. In Dutch it is known as the Howler Monkey convention but I am not sure what the underlying theory is. Maybe it is so that if someone subconsciously "knows" to be the culprit, he reacts by attacking partner in order to preempt himself from getting the blame. Or maybe it's just that players who search for their partners' mistakes instead of their own don't progress to the level where they will make fewer mistakes. (The Fluffy quote, which a few people have in their signature, comes to mind).

[whereagles]

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 05:40, said:

she had interpretted the "3rd hand high" lesson from her teacher as a bridge law, i.e. that playing low in third seat would have been a revoke.

well, that's first time I heard of such a thing.. lol

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 07:23, said:

This is my observation also. In Dutch it is known as the Howler Monkey convention but I am not sure what the underlying theory is.

I have always assumed the underlying theory was that "attack is the best form of defence". Once I realised that it really is true at the bridge table that someone criticising partner has usually made a mistake themselves I found my composure in the face of partner's criticisms improved hugely. (Unfortunately I've never seemed to find it quite so easy to accept that the same thing is happening when I criticise partner....)

[phil_20686]

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 07:23, said:

This is my observation also. In Dutch it is known as the Howler Monkey convention but I am not sure what the underlying theory is. Maybe it is so that if someone subconsciously "knows" to be the culprit, he reacts by attacking partner in order to preempt himself from getting the blame. Or maybe it's just that players who search for their partners' mistakes instead of their own don't progress to the level where they will make fewer mistakes. (The Fluffy quote, which a few people have in their signature, comes to mind).

Its that when you have done something stupid you really hope that partner will save you from yourself. If you do something stupid, and partner has the chance to save you, and then doesn't, that is incredibly annoying. Way more annoying than just making a mistake and losing immediately.

[Lorne50]

Trump Echo, on 2014-July-24, 05:12, said:

I could not discern the location of any aces or queens or tenaces, so I figured each of my Kings had about an even chance of winning a trick. So as it stands holding 3 Kings, I have about an even chance of winning two tricks - unless I lead away from a King. I don't know what my partner holds in trumps, but I do know what I hold. So I led a trump.

---

Thanks for your help!

Please explain how this cost a trick - declarer must lose a trump and a club unless your partner was stupid enough to play the Q on trick 1.

[mikestar13]

♠ 8 was as good a guess as any, and would have been a standout if you knew the trumps were 6-2, provided partner could be counted on not to play the Queen. Buy her a copy of Watson's Play of the Hand... and highlight the material on third hand play; then let her end the partnership if she wishes: you need a partner, not a third opponent, to play this game.

[Cyberyeti]

You still appeared to beat the contract, at least declarer didn't take advantage of your partner's slip by arranging to lose a club to you and ruffing a club with the K. Playing diamonds at trick 2 and then leading a club to the 10 would seem to do it.

Suspect declarer couldn't believe your partner's play either.

[Trump Echo]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-24, 15:19, said:

You still appeared to beat the contract, at least declarer didn't take advantage of your partner's slip by arranging to lose a club to you and ruffing a club with the K. Playing diamonds at trick 2 and then leading a club to the 10 would seem to do it.

Suspect declarer couldn't believe your partner's play either.

Good point. Declarer can figure I have all three Kings from my lead. I didn't think of that.

Maybe some day...

[the hog]

Trump Echo, on 2014-July-24, 17:13, said:

Good point. Declarer can figure I have all three Kings from my lead. I didn't think of that.

Maybe some day...

As has already been pointed out by some very good players here, the trump lead is poor. For me this is the worst of all possible leads on the hand. Your partner's play was even poorer.

[itisjill]

the hog, on 2014-July-24, 18:29, said:

As has already been pointed out by some very good players here, the trump lead is poor. For me this is the worst of all possible leads on the hand. Your partner's play was even poorer.

Yes, you are correct my play on the first trick was terrible. I was so surprised to see the trump lead that I played to quickly and didn't take time to think over my correct play.

[diana_eva]

itisjill, on 2014-July-24, 19:51, said:

Yes, you are correct my play on the first trick was terrible. I was so surprised to see the trump lead that I played to quickly and didn't take time to think over my correct play.

Welcome to the Forums, Jill

[whereagles]

The double dummy simulations of Bird/Anthias indicate that while it is true that trump leads are generally a waste of time, they become favourites (even if singleton) when the other possible leads are honor underleads. I'm willing to place a considerable bet that this hand isn't an exception

[kenberg]

First things first, welcome to Jill. You got a sort of rough introduction to the forum, not having asked to be judged. I did not say what I would have led because I really do not think that it is clear at all. I pressed the GIB button, and it tells me that the lead of a club, any club, gives away the contract. But GIB plays double dummy and it took me a bit to see just how this would go.

As to trump leads, there was an interesting hand from the Spingold on VuGraph yesterday:

---

NS have 9 hearts and EW have 8 spades, so the Law of Total Tricks suggests that the number of tricls that NS can take in a heart contract added to the number of tricks that EW can take in a spade contract should be 9+8=17. Sometimes the LAW is actually right, and so it is here, with 9 tricks for EW in a spade contract and 8 for EW in a heart contract. Of course in spades, to make 9 tricks EW must hold their spade losers to 1, say by leading the spade 9 and letting it ride if it is not covered. Maybe he would have.We will never know because the contract was 3♥ at both tables. Obviously EW can take two clubs, two diamonds and a spade. At both tables, 3♥ was made. Trust me, I am not about to give lessons to the players I was watching.

The opening lead was a trump, won by declarer. A spade was led from had, E rising with the Ace. The, at both tables, another trump. After which one of the diamonds goes away, pitched on the spade King. .

What can be said? Given the bidding, the spade from North at trick 2 is a stiff, rising seems right and is right. Now is E supposed to lead one of his unsupported aces? One of the commentators observed that at trick 2, W followed with the ♠4. EW were playing upside down count and attitude, so why the spades 4? W presumably has exactly three spades from the bidding and play. Suit preference maybe, showing club values? This was the commentator's observation, it never occurred to me. A mistake by E? Maybe. I won't be pointing it out to them.
Anyway, round 16 of the Spingold, fine players, same contract and same play at both tables.

Even Homer nods.

[whereagles]

What's the opening lead got to do with that? It's a misdefence, that's all.

[kenberg]

whereagles, on 2014-July-25, 08:07, said:

What's the opening lead got to do with that? It's a misdefence, that's all.

It's a mis-defense in the sense that they could have beaten it. There was discussion as to whether they should have gotten it right. The general view of the commentators was that the opening trump lead made good sense. The reasons were more or less the same reasons as the OP gave for his opening trump lead: Other leads looked even worse. But at T3 East is on again with the spade Ace and must decide what to do. Does he have enough information to lay down an unsupported Ace, and if so which one? Declarer could have three diamonds rather than two, and the honor card holdings could be such that it is right to go limp. Or at least the defenders at both tables seemed to think so.

I though it interesting in general, but I also thought it relevant because OP chose a trump lead as, in his opinion, the least of evils. Sometimes this will be right, sometimes wrong. For example, in the OP, North might have held Jxxx instead of Qxxx. On a club lead, for example, declarer could pick up Jxxx but probably wouldn't and so the trump lead would cost a trick. I realize you (and everyone else) knows this I simply mean it as an illustration that with OP's holding, any lead could go wrong.

Although not so related to the OP, I also find it an interesting illustration of the LAW. The LAW says 17 total tricks. And there are 8 tricks in hearts nad 9 in spades. But in fact declarer made 9 tricks not 8 in hearts, and my guess is that a spade declarer would make 8 tricks not 9 in spades. Just an amusement.

And going back to the OP hand, after the spade Q at T1, declarer can still make the hand even if he plays a spade to the board and sees South show out. He plays South for unsupported Kings, probably reasonable. Then he must also, I think, place the ♦ T on his right, dropping. A bit less reasonable, probably. But it would work. It takes some planning.

We all know that players, even the best, do not always find the optimal line.

[billw55]

itisjill, on 2014-July-24, 19:51, said:

Yes, you are correct my play on the first trick was terrible. I was so surprised to see the trump lead that I played to quickly and didn't take time to think over my correct play.

Yes, welcome to forums, we hope you stay a while.

Bridge errors are familiar to all of us. Even the very best players here will admit to many.

Ken's advice is very good, to consider carefully one's own plays before criticizing partner. Also I would suggest, when partner does something unexpected, take a pause and try to work out what his reason might be - don't just assume it is an error. Sometimes it will be anyway (especially if you are playing with me) but the consideration will be appreciated.

[neilkaz]

itisjill, on 2014-July-24, 19:51, said:

Yes, you are correct my play on the first trick was terrible. I was so surprised to see the trump lead that I played to quickly and didn't take time to think over my correct play.

Welcome to the forums, Jill and yes, things in the I/A forum can get a bit heated and players will be criticized. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding what happened here and that what I am about to say is criticizing you. It is OK to hate partner's trump lead here and to be surprised by it, but it you're defending vs a small slam, for heaven's sake. So what better time to pause and think just a bit rather than making a nothing play (can't gain and can only lose) by playing the Q from Qxxx when dummy has Kx, and in this case quickly blowing a trick?

Certainly you've played enough bridge to realize that if you don't play the queen, declarer won't be able to pull trump without losing a trick to you since there's not a 3rd trump in dummy to take the needed next finesse. The only way declarer can pick up trumps is via a trump coup and even if that is possible here (I don't think so after a very quick look) so much can go wrong along the way to that ending. Therefore, the beginner error of playing the Q simply costs a trick and in this case the contract. Please, and this applies to all players including myself and my partners, slow down a bit when something in the play surprises you.

Had I had a large mental lapse and played the Queen here, blowing a trick, I'd be extremely apologetic to PD prior to asking if we can look at the hand later to see if, perhaps he had a better lead, and there'd be no argument since as soon as one was starting, I'd have to bow out due to my horrible error playing the Q.

Just my thoughts .. neilkaz ..