[pclayton]

Scoring: MP

West opens 4S, double - pass - 5H - AP

---

West leads the ♠AK; RHO showing an odd#.

Over to you.

[han]

Plan: Diamond jack, if not covered win ace, finesse diamond, diamond king, ruff diamond high enough, heart.

[RichMor]

Don't I want to lead a Heart in case East has the stiff Ace ?

[Echognome]

RichMor, on Nov 6 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Don't I want to lead a Heart in case East has the stiff Ace ?

If he returns a diamond, you still need the club finesse. I think Han's plan is to try to eliminate the diamonds first. I'm not sure it's the best plan, but it's probably the only plan that doesn't need the club finesse.

[ArtK78]

Han is making the very reasonable assumption that LHO would have opened 1♠ rather than 4♠ if he held AKJxxxx(x) of spades and the ♣K. Therefore, he is trying to eliminate the diamonds before throwing East in with his (presumed) singleton ♥A. It makes sense to play East for diamond length and also for the ♦Q based on the same logic (and based on the fact that LHO has 7 or more spades).

Han's line is the best one that I see for making the hand. It runs the slight risk that diamonds are 6-1 and hearts are 1-1 (with LHO having a small singleton heart, of course), in which case you go down an extra trick. It also runs the risk that LHO has the ♦Q, which is possible - LHO might not open 1♠ with AKJxxxx of spades and the Qx(x) of diamonds. So, Han tried to coax a cover of the ♦J as an extra chance.

[pclayton]

han, on Nov 6 2008, 10:58 AM, said:

Plan: Diamond jack, if not covered win ace, finesse diamond, diamond king, ruff diamond high enough, heart.

This is how I played it. It only cost an extra under; LHO was AKJxxxx, void, Qxx, xxx.

If the club finesse is working all along, you risk your contract, although that gives LHO a VERY funny 1st seat preempt on a 13 count.

[rogerclee]

Really don't like the suggested line in MP. For it to succeed you need LHO to have at least 3 diamonds, to not have the diamond Q, to have a heart, and to not have the HA or CK.

Even if you want to assume they won't have the CK/HA + DQ (reasonable, but you never know, some people like to open 4S with heavy hands) the odds that LHO has exactly 7132 or 7141 are low. If LHO has a doubleton diamond he can ruff the third diamond and you have now failed to strip out the diamonds, and if hearts are 0-2 obviously this line won't work. Even if LHO does have one of those shapes there is now quite a good chance they have the DQ. Doing all of this and risking down 2 fairly often is just too risky imo.

I prefer to play 3 rounds of diamonds, ruffing, and exiting a heart. I have lost my contract now if LHO had 7132 with no DQ, but I have gained my contract when LHO has 7123 with Qx of diamonds, and when LHO has 7141 with the DQ. I have broken even when LHO has 7141 with no DQ. This line is coming close to correct at imps and if you add in how much more often I will go down 1 instead of down 2 (any layout with hearts 2-0 and DQ on left, and 7132 with DQ on left) I think it's pretty much a no brainer at MP.

edit: sorry, I do not make when LHO has Qxx of diamonds obviously, I meant I go down 1 instead hopefully nobody is posting how dumb I am

edit2: also dont make on Qx of diamonds oops

[ArtK78]

If RHO has a diamond remaining after three rounds of diamonds (i.e., if RHO has 4 or more diamonds), then you do not make. RHO merely exits a diamond upon being thrown in with his (assumed) singleton ♥A.

So, for three rounds of diamonds to be the right line, LHO must be 7-1-4-1 with or without the ♦Q. Otherwise, you can never get RHO to lead a club or give a ruff-sluff upon winning the ♥A.

After posting this I see that Roger revised his post.

One more point - it is far from clear that going down an extra trick will cost much at matchpoints. any minus score rates to be poor.

[655321]

I like the line suggested by han and pclayton.

As a side note, if we assume that spades are 7-3 (as they look to be), and hearts are 1-1 (as we probably need them) then the odds of the diamond splits are:

• 5-2  1.0%
  
• 4-3 12.2%
  
• 3-4 36.7%
  
• 2-5 36.7%
  
• 1-6 12.2%
  
• 0-7  1.0%

[rogerclee]

Just wanted to make sure everyone realized it was matchpoints? We don't need 1-1 hearts to go down 1.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Nov 6 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Just wanted to make sure everyone realized it was matchpoints? We don't need 1-1 hearts to go down 1.

Indeed we don't need the stiff A♥ for -1 .....

[han]

Must admit I didn't see it was MPs. Better problem this way.

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on Nov 6 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

One more point - it is far from clear that going down an extra trick will cost much at matchpoints. any minus score rates to be poor.

Not sure that is so true, there may be a couple of 4S contracts making