p*********6
发帖数: 679 | 1 在JEC赛，Dano坐北主打这副5Cx:
W N E S
1c 1s 2c
2h 3c 4h p
p 5c X p
p p
4
J76
A63
AKJ983
J7653
3
KJ8
QT74
E首攻sA：A 3 T 4
拔hA： A 3 K 7
再s2 脱手。。。
怎么打？机会看来满多，飞，单挤，双挤？你准备何时判断。另外，防守方面，E拔hA
及W下hK是不是都不好？ | v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 2 看起来就是个S/D的显露式挤牌，还有别的机会吗？
【在 p*********6 的大作中提到】
: 在JEC赛，Dano坐北主打这副5Cx:
: W N E S
: 1c 1s 2c
: 2h 3c 4h p
: p 5c X p
: p p
: 4
: J76
: A63
: AKJ983
| g****o
发帖数: 1284 | 3 西垫了HK，保证HQ？
那么双挤不是更显然的么？最后的残局是：
北
-
J
A6
A
南
J
-
KJ8
-
现在北出CA，不管东西都留不住三张方块？
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 看起来就是个S/D的显露式挤牌，还有别的机会吗？
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 4 赢墩不够，打不到这个残局，北手上的方块3垫不掉。
【在 g****o 的大作中提到】
: 西垫了HK，保证HQ？
: 那么双挤不是更显然的么？最后的残局是：
: 北
: -
: J
: A6
: A
: 南
: J
: -
| g****o
发帖数: 1284 | 5 ft，没数赢墩。确实打不到。看来我真的已经打不了桥牌了
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 赢墩不够，打不到这个残局，北手上的方块3垫不掉。
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 6 It appears that east shows 5 S + 4H, so it's usually a good idea to play a
simple squeeze against west in H and D. to reach that position, you need to
ruff 3 more spades.
So ruff S with CA.
C to C7,
ruff second S, with CK, suppose trump is 2-1 split.
J to CQ.
ruff the third S with CJ,
D to DK.
ruff the 4th S with C9.
ruff H to dummy.
Now play dummy's club and squeeze west in D and H.
【在 p*********6 的大作中提到】
: 在JEC赛，Dano坐北主打这副5Cx:
: W N E S
: 1c 1s 2c
: 2h 3c 4h p
: p 5c X p
: p p
: 4
: J76
: A63
: AKJ983
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 7 好像还可以明手倒打之后挤西，东拔了HA之后就给庄家这个机会了。
就看想捉哪边的DQ了。
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 看起来就是个S/D的显露式挤牌，还有别的机会吗？
| j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 8 If LHO turn out to have two trumps (5422), I believe it's a good idea to
squeeze RHO in H/D; otherwise it's hard to say
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 好像还可以明手倒打之后挤西，东拔了HA之后就给庄家这个机会了。
: 就看想捉哪边的DQ了。
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 9 从叫牌和打牌看，西像是
Kx
KQxxxx
?xx
xx
而东是
AQxxx
Axx
?xxx
x
难说谁有DQ,可以在探知C分布之后再决定两种打法何去何从。
不过一个问题是HK的意义应该是继续要H吧(西明显能看出S是没前途的)，东不这么打就
给了庄家挤西家的可能性，这能不能是套得看东西的水平了。。。
to
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: It appears that east shows 5 S + 4H, so it's usually a good idea to play a
: simple squeeze against west in H and D. to reach that position, you need to
: ruff 3 more spades.
: So ruff S with CA.
: C to C7,
: ruff second S, with CK, suppose trump is 2-1 split.
: J to CQ.
: ruff the third S with CJ,
: D to DK.
: ruff the 4th S with C9.
| j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 10 seems to me that S is AKxxx vs QT, but that doesn't really matter:)
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 从叫牌和打牌看，西像是
: Kx
: KQxxxx
: ?xx
: xx
: 而东是
: AQxxx
: Axx
: ?xxx
: x
| | | v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 11 http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-205442
这副牌的记录，大概是庄家在读出西2641牌型后选择挤他并打成吧。值得讨论的是东的防守
，在看到同伴的ST,HK之后，打小S是否合适呢，从结果上看确是帮了庄家的忙。
【在 p*********6 的大作中提到】
: 在JEC赛，Dano坐北主打这副5Cx:
: W N E S
: 1c 1s 2c
: 2h 3c 4h p
: p 5c X p
: p p
: 4
: J76
: A63
: AKJ983
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | | b***y
发帖数: 2804 | | j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 14 ST could be singleton from E's perspective.
的防守
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-205442
: 这副牌的记录，大概是庄家在读出西2641牌型后选择挤他并打成吧。值得讨论的是东的防守
: ，在看到同伴的ST,HK之后，打小S是否合适呢，从结果上看确是帮了庄家的忙。
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 15 东家的出牌没啥问题，虽然叫牌判断比较差。西家应该鼓励东家继续红心。ＨＫ可能会
被认为要求黑桃将吃。当然这都是事后诸葛亮，场上不太可能算到反明手＋挤牌的情况。
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: ST could be singleton from E's perspective.
:
: 的防守
| p*********6
发帖数: 679 | | b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 17 嗯，ＨＡ确实是疑问手。挤牌的情况先不说了，这个场上分析不出来。但有可能庄家有
ＨＫ，直接送成定约。第二墩出小黑桃似乎比较好。
【在 p*********6 的大作中提到】
: 第二顿不拔了HA如何？
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 18 If west holds DQTx(x), the correct defense is to play a low heart, which
suggest a diamond switch. HK usually asks for a S switch. That's also the
point I have repeated again and again, one shouldn't expect opps to always
offer the best defense. Defense in the first few tricks is difficult and
declarer should often take advantage of it and find the winning line.
【在 p*********6 的大作中提到】
: 第二顿不拔了HA如何？
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 19 If east shows 5-4-3-1, it's still better to squeeze east. The only layouts
you want to take the finesse against east are 5-3-4-1 or 5-3-5-0. So if east
shows no clubs, it's better to finesse east, otherwise, it's probably a
good idea just to squeeze west. Also, the dummy reversal can help the
declarer to discover the club situation and decide which line to choose.
Also, this hand indicates a useful false card situation. Suppose you hold QT
KQxxx xxxx xx, you should play HK to encourage partner playing S for you,
later, declarer may adopt the dummy reversal line you create for him and go
down. In that sense, it's a forced false card situation. Still, most may not
think that deep at the table.
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: If LHO turn out to have two trumps (5422), I believe it's a good idea to
: squeeze RHO in H/D; otherwise it's hard to say
| j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 20 agree; HK is a deep falsecard play if one does not hold D key cards.
east
QT
go
not
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: If east shows 5-4-3-1, it's still better to squeeze east. The only layouts
: you want to take the finesse against east are 5-3-4-1 or 5-3-5-0. So if east
: shows no clubs, it's better to finesse east, otherwise, it's probably a
: good idea just to squeeze west. Also, the dummy reversal can help the
: declarer to discover the club situation and decide which line to choose.
: Also, this hand indicates a useful false card situation. Suppose you hold QT
: KQxxx xxxx xx, you should play HK to encourage partner playing S for you,
: later, declarer may adopt the dummy reversal line you create for him and go
: down. In that sense, it's a forced false card situation. Still, most may not
: think that deep at the table.
| | | p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 21 Also, if declarer knows that west's bridge is that deep and is capable of
false card a suit preference to induce a losing option, declarer can still
take the diamond finesse. Now it becomes a problem of how good you know
about your opps.
east
QT
go
not
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: If east shows 5-4-3-1, it's still better to squeeze east. The only layouts
: you want to take the finesse against east are 5-3-4-1 or 5-3-5-0. So if east
: shows no clubs, it's better to finesse east, otherwise, it's probably a
: good idea just to squeeze west. Also, the dummy reversal can help the
: declarer to discover the club situation and decide which line to choose.
: Also, this hand indicates a useful false card situation. Suppose you hold QT
: KQxxx xxxx xx, you should play HK to encourage partner playing S for you,
: later, declarer may adopt the dummy reversal line you create for him and go
: down. In that sense, it's a forced false card situation. Still, most may not
: think that deep at the table.
| j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 22 yeah, game theory...
and then the reasoning is endless: if you know that he knows that you know
that...
still
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Also, if declarer knows that west's bridge is that deep and is capable of
: false card a suit preference to induce a losing option, declarer can still
: take the diamond finesse. Now it becomes a problem of how good you know
: about your opps.
:
: east
: QT
: go
: not
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 23 Well, not exactly a game theory problem. For game theory problems, you
usually mix your plays and your opps have no way to figure out which holding
you have. For problems like this, if you don't play HK, you are always
hopeless to induce declarer to play a dummy reversal if partner doesn't
return S. So it is a forced false card which shouldn't really work if your
opp knows you well. For most bridge players, this analysis to play the
forced false card is actually good enough to help them win a lot at the
table against decent opps who don't know them well.
Still, from east's perspective, he also has an interesting defense problem.
Suppose east holds AKxxx Axxx Qxx x, the correct defense would be a low
spade next to either offer partner a ruff in S or induce an unsuccessful
dummy reversal. So in that sense, if east knows that his partner's bridge is
quite deep, he doesn't have to play HK to ask for S switch if he holds no
DQ, his partner would just play the spade himself. Instead, he can play a
middle D to show no suit preference.
Now this deal becomes quite instructive. For declarer, it's often a matter
of how good you think your opp is at some certain situations. So bridge
players really should play and watch a lot to form a good database on opps.
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: yeah, game theory...
: and then the reasoning is endless: if you know that he knows that you know
: that...
:
: still
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 24 如果假设以上信息是完全共享的，Nash均衡点就是抛个硬币决定怎么打。
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: yeah, game theory...
: and then the reasoning is endless: if you know that he knows that you know
: that...
:
: still
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 25 Also, declarer should really work hard to understand when he should take opp
's gift and make an impossible contract and when he should resist the
temptation and fall back to the original plan. This is probably the key
issue for all the discussions.
holding
.
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Well, not exactly a game theory problem. For game theory problems, you
: usually mix your plays and your opps have no way to figure out which holding
: you have. For problems like this, if you don't play HK, you are always
: hopeless to induce declarer to play a dummy reversal if partner doesn't
: return S. So it is a forced false card which shouldn't really work if your
: opp knows you well. For most bridge players, this analysis to play the
: forced false card is actually good enough to help them win a lot at the
: table against decent opps who don't know them well.
: Still, from east's perspective, he also has an interesting defense problem.
: Suppose east holds AKxxx Axxx Qxx x, the correct defense would be a low
| m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 26 这个问题对我来说， 太简单了。
能飞的时候绝对不挤。 所有的东西都解决了。
【在 p*********6 的大作中提到】
: 在JEC赛，Dano坐北主打这副5Cx:
: W N E S
: 1c 1s 2c
: 2h 3c 4h p
: p 5c X p
: p p
: 4
: J76
: A63
: AKJ983
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 27 一般说来，西家不可能想得这么周全，一早就看出来有个反明手＋挤牌的可能性。西家
甚至不知道庄家持ＨＪ，没有这张牌的话挤牌根本不成立。但如果西家方块没有任何大
牌的话，打ＨＫ倒也不亏。当看到没啥希望的时候，有时候出些不寻常的牌会有奇妙的
效果，即便当时你自己也不知道到底效果会在哪里。反正就是死马当活马医了。庄家这
种时候基本上应该 ignore，就按概率去打。
现在越看越觉得东家第二墩拔ＨＡ是张臭牌。第二轮出小黑桃会有损墩的情况吗？ | j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 28 right, RHO can play a middle H to let LHO think himself, if he knows that
LHO can think deeply.
But I am talking about game theory in a different sense.
In a lot of puzzles (e.g. pirates dividing gold coins), we assume others to
be 100% logical, just as in Bridge quiz we tend to assume best defense. But
it would be "crazy" to do so in real life situations. You may end up being
the first pirate being thrown into the sea.
And even if you are playing against best players, it could be that the best
players are making a not-the-best play on purpose to be "inconsistent"
sometimes and thus not as predictable as you assume.
holding
.
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Well, not exactly a game theory problem. For game theory problems, you
: usually mix your plays and your opps have no way to figure out which holding
: you have. For problems like this, if you don't play HK, you are always
: hopeless to induce declarer to play a dummy reversal if partner doesn't
: return S. So it is a forced false card which shouldn't really work if your
: opp knows you well. For most bridge players, this analysis to play the
: forced false card is actually good enough to help them win a lot at the
: table against decent opps who don't know them well.
: Still, from east's perspective, he also has an interesting defense problem.
: Suppose east holds AKxxx Axxx Qxx x, the correct defense would be a low
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 29 That's actually right. Sometimes bad bids or defense may induce bad bids or
defense from opps in the future. In that sense, it is very profitable to
make small mistakes to induce large mistakes from opps, which can be more
profitable than the strategy that is mistake free, but also quite
predictable. This kind of philosophy is applied in no limit holdem a lot.
Many very good players just make a lot of small mistakes and try to induce a
huge one from their inexperienced opps. Still, against such players, if you
play a mistake free game, you still may win.
In bridge, often bad contracts are difficult to defend. Very often, we can
beat some quite well bid contracts, but blow a few tricks in those badly bid
contracts.
In that sense, if you bid some rather bad, but not the hopeless contracts,
you may actually have some edge against weak defenders because they may
often offer you a chance to make it. This also explains why many aggressive
bidders can frequently win in this game.
to
But
being
best
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: right, RHO can play a middle H to let LHO think himself, if he knows that
: LHO can think deeply.
: But I am talking about game theory in a different sense.
: In a lot of puzzles (e.g. pirates dividing gold coins), we assume others to
: be 100% logical, just as in Bridge quiz we tend to assume best defense. But
: it would be "crazy" to do so in real life situations. You may end up being
: the first pirate being thrown into the sea.
: And even if you are playing against best players, it could be that the best
: players are making a not-the-best play on purpose to be "inconsistent"
: sometimes and thus not as predictable as you assume.
|
|
