Talk:Scissors coup

Better example
Cambion, the example seems OK (although I must admit I forgot what exactly Scissors coup is). However, couldn't the declarer make the contract by simply ducking the first trick? If so, the example is not quite straightforward -- maybe the scissors coup tecnique is better than duck, as it copes with the possibility that E started with 8 hearts, but still it leaves something to be desired. Duja 08:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I had neglected that. Ducking works as long as the hearts are 7-2. The scissors coup works if the AC is 'offside'. (however the scissors coup method does not immediately go down if it is played by E - ruff and pray that the trumps are favourable). Maybe ducking is superior - I suppose it depends on how you think opponents pre-empt.
 * Actually, the scissors coup works regardless of who has the AC. Don't ruff if E plays it--discard the HJ as before. Matchups 11:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well again that depends if you think hearts are 7-2 or 8-1. If they are 7-2 then yes that works. If they are 8-1 then you've just set up the trump promotion... Having said that 7-2 is more likey... Cambion 13:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone do a better example? Cambion 09:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done Matchups - a very elegant way of nullifying Duja's superior play to the hand! It also shows that playing the Q from AQ can be right. I'd imagine most players would play the A then think "damn" a trick later.... Cambion 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noticed a lot of times that in a situation with the AQ in one hand and a singleton in the other, or similar situations, the ace is taken and the queen is played, on which the Scissors Coup is executed. That will fail, though, if the second player can and does cover with the king. So the king has to be in front of the AQ. Wouldn't you be able to simplify things by taking the finesse and then discarding the loser on the ace? If you lose the finesse, it wasn't makable anyway unless they failed to cover the queen (not likely. East will be thinking why South took the ace and then led the queen if he didn't have a singleton.) If you win, you just got an overtrick. Andrewb1 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your point. Can you put it another way?Cambion (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Assume there's Kx in declarer's hand that he doesn't want attacked, and Ax against xx in another suit. West leads a small one from a Jxxx holding in the second suit, East plays the queen to show the king, and South wins the ace. Since West has the ace of the first suit as well, he doesn't want East to win the second club. And he can't duck because East is holding the trick. So in the remaining side suit, South has a singleton against AQxxx. South cashes the ace and leads the queen, hoping to be able to get rid of the other X such that East can't take the second round of clubs. But if East can cover with the king, there's no play for the contract since declarer must ruff instead of letting East hold the trick by discarding his singleton. So South might as well lead the small one to the queen, and hope for the finesse to work such that he can drop the loser on the ace.

East could fail to cover with the king, but why would he not cover when declarer has easily shown a singleton by playing the hearts from the top? Andrewb1 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Either that hand was nicked from Terence Reese, or I'm a Dutchman: the linguistic style, before I sat on the article, was characteristic. Source, anyone? And yes, the posted hand is indeed a Scissors Coup, and a very pure example of one. (BTW if E has CA and W DAJ you've had it, whatever you try.) Narky Blert (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Coup with no name
The scissors coup was originally called "the coup with no name". See http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19820203&id=IaUfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q9YEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5175,288136. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleLaceyNZ (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)