The Quickie Analysis
Quickie Analysis
I have a bit of a thing about the quickie analysis, the claim after a hand has been played that it could make 2 hearts or three clubs or the like. For starters, I have seen hands where a switching of the 7 & 8 from one side to the other would change a trick, not to mention a slightly more frequent 8's & 9's and 9's and 10'spelling a difference. Also, I have seen surprise squeezes surface at about trick 9 or 10 that I don't think anyone aside from the very top players could foresee or fathom from having watched a hand played in another denomination.
And the dumbest analyses -- I can't use any kinder word -- are those stemming from a look at a travelling scoresheet. "Oh, it makes three hearts," says a startled viewer at the traveller, after having let the opposition get away with a 3 club bid. Indeed, it was such a claim within the past week from this writing that prompted this dissertation, well, one of the reasons.
Myself, I don't feel comfortable with an analysis unless I've looked at 52 cards. Oh, there may be a few exceptions, when one side's suits are solid, but missing two aces, or one ace and an offsides king. But if there is any complexity at all to a hand, if there are several tenace positions, if third or even fourth round ruffs are necessary, if entries are at all scarce, then I hold that -- excepting the very top experts -- people can't analyze after having seen the hand played in another denomination, that is, with any degree of assurance that they're right. Of course they're bound to be right some of the time . . . But not enough to put any trust in their assurances, since you don't know when they're right unless you do your own analysis.
"It makes two hearts," said an opponent, holding up the sheet on a hand that had been played just once before. "You don't really know that," I pointed out, following that with, "It could represent bad defense." At which the partner of the first lady said with some gritted-teeth asperity, "Well, it's not cast in stone." I could've kept my mouth shut, I grant (and did after the second comment, which I didn't even understand). But I can say that I'd spoken softly, offering what seems to me a truism and was a little disturbed that I'd invited what appeared to be a hostile reaction.
As for her comment, the closest I can come to meaning is that she was referring to her partner's comment or opinion (though not presented as an opinion), which of course was not only not cast in stone, but was not even written on paper. Or was the second lady just intent on saying something that would make it look as though I needed her clarification. I dunno.
Actually, it was really a second event the same week that prompted my write-up here. That was finding a little recognized J of clubs at the tail end of a hand that made -- or should've made -- all the difference in the world for declarer. I hadn't noticed it though looking at the hand off and on over the course of a couple of hours, and moreover, declarer didn't' notice it, i.e., evidently didn't notice that after ruffing the J, he didn't notice that his 10 was high, for he had the rest of the tricks if he'd cashed the 10. I toyed with the idea of a postscript, describing how much I appreciate being able to look at every card played on every trick, and then thought, why not make this a separate entry rather than confined to a postscript on one hand.
In any event, from my observation, those with the quickie analysis are right less than half the time -- or do I just happen to remember the mistakes more than the hits? I can't say. But even if we grant them getting it right half the time, that still leaves us not knowing which half, unless we do a close analysis, which is I think we need before pontificating in the first place.
I recall the time two know-it-all's discussed how a hand would've fared in a denomination not played in. I was uncomfortable with their analysis but didn't know why -- until the next morning, at which time I kept running through a casual comment on what they were missing. But it was too late. And then there was the time my partner overcalled a diamond bid in clubs, and when RHO raised the diamonds, I raised my partner, and we then let 'em have the contract with the higher ranking suit.
I laid down the A of my partner's suit, picking up a stiff K in dummy, through no merit of my own. Now at the end of the hand my partner went over the hand in his mind, laying down the result with the claim that we could make four clubs, losing no clubs and no spades, two diamonds and one heart. "No clubs?" I questioned. "That stiff K won't be showing in a club contract. Doncha think we'd lose a club on a finesse into the K?"
"Oh!" said my partner, which was followed with a flowery compliment that with my expertise with handling the cards, surely I'd pick it up. Better to fend me off with a compliment, however bogus, than admit he'd been wrong. But he was wrong on something else. He would've been playing the hand! He didn't even rememeber that and felt safe pontificating with his quickie analysis.
Just two examples? Yep. 'Fraid so. Maybe none would have been better, rather than expose how few cases I can cite with reasonable certitude. Maybe I can cite a few more in the future. But better. . . watch for cases, yourself! You don't hafta go out of your way, if you play duplicate. Listen to the comments, mark a couple on your convention card, write /em down later and lemme know what you find.
Actually there are more than two illustrations at various places on this site. I think of the lady who'd just successfully completed a 3 no contract saying she could've made 4 hearts, where dummy had shown a singleton in each red suit -- and I had both aces. I pointed out that no, she would hafta lose two hearts and two diamonds. "I have only one diamond in dummy," she protested, at which I pointed out that she only had one heart also, and we, the defense could cash two hearts and then two diamonds. Oh, I won't look for other illustrations. I only know that people aren't very good at playing the cards in the air.
Nor do I claim to be, incidentally. Not at all. When a partner asks if we could've done such-and-such after a hand has been played, I always say, "I need to look at 52 cards before I'm prepared to say what a hand will make." I'm aware that saying I need to look at 52 cards opens me up to the charge from the know-it-alls that that only proves I'm not very bright and have projected my inability to analayze a hand out of memory of play in another denonimation onto others. The reader can decide for himself where intelligence lies. If you think you're good enough to analyze play in another denomination out of memory, you'll see me as not too bright. Okay. I'll be happy enough with those astute enough to recognize the sheer improbability of so doing on hands with any complexity at all.
(I must admit I think I could establish my thesis if I had the luxury of noting the whole hand and challenging anyone who tells me would could've been made in another denomination.)