BBO Discussion Forums: duck or take - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

duck or take trick one problem

#1 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2011-February-10, 18:18

♠xx
♥K10xx
♦Jx
♣AQ843

We vul, they nv, IMPs.

(1 NT)-pass-(2♣)-X
(pass!)-pass-(XX)-pass
( 2 ♠!)-pass-(3NT)-all pass

you doubled 2 clubs and then you find declarer has shown no club stopper (pass) and no 4 card major (2♠)

partner leads ♣10, consistent with 10x, 109x, 109xx


dummy has

♠QJxx
♥Jxx
♦Kxxx
♣K3

declarer plays ♣3 from dummy, your turn.
BridgeGod: my personal website with interactive problems and articles
0

#2 User is offline   Hanoi5 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,083
  • Joined: 2006-August-31
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santiago, Chile
  • Interests:Bridge, Video Games, Languages, Travelling.

Posted 2011-February-10, 20:42

♣Q and 4.

 wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:

Also, he rates to not have a heart void when he leads the ♥3.


 rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:

Besides playing for fun, most people also like to play bridge to win


My YouTube Channel
1

#3 User is offline   Echognome 

  • Deipnosophist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,386
  • Joined: 2005-March-22

Posted 2011-February-10, 21:05

I think I would play declarer for Jxx. It's close though. If declarer has Jx, I might have just let declarer make an impossible contract. By the way, if I took the Q, then I would play ♣A and then hope partner works out to unblock. Given that declarer will have played the J, it should be pretty obvious.
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
0

#4 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2011-February-12, 14:30

There was a missexplanation here, 2♠ was intended as natural

declarer had

♠AKxx
♥Qxx
♦AQxx
♣Jx
BridgeGod: my personal website with interactive problems and articles
0

#5 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-February-13, 12:56

I hope the TD changed it to 3N-3?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#6 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2011-February-19, 08:47

View PostFluffy, on 2011-February-12, 14:30, said:

There was a missexplanation here, 2♠ was intended as natural

declarer had

♠AKxx
♥Qxx
♦AQxx
♣Jx


That makes a bit of a difference. With no 4-card major, declarer is bound to have at least 3 clubs: with 3352 he would probably have bid 2♦ 2nd round and besides that shape is only one of the many possible. Therefore you have a very strong case for ducking the club or play Q + small (this one is probably better, because it makes it clearer for pard).

If 2♠ is intended as natural, then ♣QA is a lot more attractive. I don't say one'd play like that 100% of the time, but at least 50% or so would be normal. Frequency-based score adjustment is a possibility (i.e. 50% of 3NT-1, 50% of 3NT=).

HOWEVER, if 2♠ is the correct, systemic, explanation, then no redress is due.
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users