Talk:Morton's fork coup

=Class= Is this still a stub? If you think so, what needs to be added to unstubbify it?
 * Remove stub tag :-). Duja 09:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

= Better examples required= Sorry, I'm confused by this example. I see that South wants to slip past the ace of hearts, or to get West to play it without taking an honour card, but what if East has the ace instead of West? Isn't this just a matter of luck? Or is it really a coup and I'm just not seeing it? 4.241.218.91 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it does rely on West having the ace. Just like taking a finesse only works when the relevant card is in the correct position some coups require cards to be in specific places. Cambion 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cambion's comment is right, of course, but I think there's a minor problem with the example hand as given -- from the standpoint of exemplifying the play, anyway. The person who confessed confusion was thrown off just a bit (quite reasonably, I think) because it wasn't clear why declarer plays West to hold the ace. More often we have a reason to play one opponent rather than another for a key card -- an avoidance play, for example, or the bidding. As far as I can tell without any table action, declarer in the example has nothing to indicate that West holds the heart ace. (Okay, he's assuming that East has the diamond ace and there was no penalty double, but that's a really weak reed.)


 * The following is, IMO, a better example, from Kelsey's The Tough Game. Against 6 spades, West leads the S2. South pulls trumps and East discards two diamonds. In order to execute the Fork with best play by the defense, South must play West for the club ace.



TurnerHodges (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm not totally sure it is ok to lift hands directly from a book, it is probably a grey area. It's a nice example but I don't really follow how it is different to the one on the page.


 * In the example in the main article, there's no special reason to try to slip past the HA in either East or West. You can decide to play either defender for the HA and while that doesn't invalidate the example at all, it blunts its point -- after all, it caused confusion for the person who posted a question in March 2007.


 * The hand I recently quoted, from Hugh Kelsey's book, differs in that there's a very sound reason to play West for the CA. If you try to slip past a putative CA in East, you must first get to dummy in order to lead a low club. The only immediate entry is in diamonds.


 * Suppose you draw trumps, lead a diamond to dummy and play a low club. East goes up with the CA and returns a diamond. Now your last immediate entry to dummy is gone and the clubs are blocked. You can't unblock the CJ and get back to dummy for heart discards on the minor suit winners.


 * Therefore, your only legitimate chance (that is, barring a defensive error) is to play West for the CA. After drawing trumps South has the lead and can play through West's presumed CA without first using up one of his two quick entries to dummy.


 * Yes, South is still making an assumption about the location of the CA. But in this case, and in contrast to the existing example in the main article, here he has a sound reason for making the assumption.


 * As to simplifying, I don't see how. It's a complex topic to begin with, and you have to take into account how the opponents decide to play in response to being forked. It's not like demonstrating a finesse, which can be done with two cards per player. I don't believe I've ever seen Morton's Fork successfully illustrated with less than a full hand. I certainly don't comprehend how an example with two heart kings simplifies things (g). Okay, you meant West to hold the A1098 in hearts. But there's still no special reason to play either defender for the HA in the hand you provide.


 * I'm no expert on the ethics of "lifting hands directly from a book," but I feel sure that using one hand, failing to quote the narrative and fully citing the author and title (and publisher, I suppose), falls well within what's called fair use. Takes place in book reviews all the time.


 * And it's "weak reed," not "weak read," although I can see the reason for the misinterpretation. The phrase is a shortening of "a weak reed to lean on." TurnerHodges (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Annoyingly, one cannot simplify it very much. Can anyone get is simpler than this? (6S) Cambion (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad example?
Can anybody supply a better example please, the given example can be made 100% of the time after inserting 9D by discarding two hearts in hand on the diamonds. No need for the fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.241.13 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (The question apparently concerns the first example hand in the main article.) After declarer plays D9 on the opening lead, East does not cover and thus does not immediately create two diamond winners. East saves the DA to play on the DK or DQ. Once the DJ has been led and the D9 played from dummy, it is pointless to play the DA on that trick. Now where are your two heart discards on the diamonds? TurnerHodges (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)